Many Faces of Wars and Power - How Powerful India can or Could be?

 

Many Faces of Wars and Power - How Powerful  India can or Could be?

              Understanding many faces of wars and power is essential to appreciate the cumulative build-up of challenges - internal and external  - to overcome; and,  determine "How Powerful India may emerge" (Rising or Super Power potential in short, mid and long term scenarios) in the comity of nations!!

              In the 21st Century, everyone is aware of the increasing complexity of the global security environment due to fluidity and sheer pace of change accentuated by sunrise technology innovations.

               "Hawkish nature" in perpetuity will be real. So, remember Indians must always: “Power respects Power"  In today's context, there are over 3 major wars (over 10,000 combat deaths), 18 wars (Less than 10,000 and more than 1000 combat deaths) and 21 minor conflicts (less than 1000 combat deaths).   No shortcuts to deter them. Wars/conflicts will always torment mankind.

              In South Asia, “Peace” is an illusion. The external threats are multifaceted.  Chinese affirmed policy in South Asia is based on its proverb "One mountain cannot contain two tigers". The "Clash of Civilizations, values and ideologies" - three-in-one - are a grim reality. Compounding it,  the avowed Pakistan policy of 1000-years Jihad to take revenge of the ignominy suffered in 1971 war will continue. Add to them, internal security boiling cauldron accentuated by  demographic transitions reinforced by migrations disturbing societal equilibrium and vicious politics on grand display.   

              As per classical political science theory, “War” is the extension of politics by other means.  Only when all other means fail, nations take recourse to full scale wars. But, mankind is engulfed by round the clock - 24x365 conflicts - “globalization of terror of all types”, radicalism and extremism. Endemic is their state of nature and character, with highly heterogeneous  state of global society based on  complex color, clan, culture, religious and class diversity - stone-age to space-age divide.

              The "Battle Space" has altered dramatically. Adversaries are exploiting the fault lines of the cognitive realm to wage new form of warfare - Hybrid Wars. Victory is won by the domination of ideas and narratives, rather than by occupying physical territory. Most importantly, the manipulation of interconnected information-rich environments makes it increasingly difficult to distinguish between friend and foe. Brain Power dominates Brawn Power in the cognitive realm.

              Military strategists have classified transformation in warfare after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 to include: classical conventional wars, nuclear war, insurgency and hybrid warfare. The shifts include  massed manpower (Gen 1), to massed firepower (Gen 2), maneuver warfare (Gen 3) to Super Insurgency (Gen 4). The latest form is classified as Hybrid Warfare (Technology Age War - Hypersonic, Precision Guided Cruise Missiles, Artificial Intelligence, Unmanned  Combat Systems and Cyber).

              Today, strategic analysts are grappling intellectually to identify new trends in future form of warfare: Where will the next war occur? Why will it occur?  Who will fight in it? How will it be fought? What will be its nature and character? No easy predictions?

              Accepted view of the majority is that Hybrid warfare, also  "Gray Zone" conflict, is real.  Hybrid warfare encompasses “the full spectrum of conflict including complex operations during peace and war”.  It  involves political warfare - synchronized use of multiple instruments of power simultaneously and deliberately - that  blends nuclear warfare, information warfare, conventional warfare, irregular warfare and cyber warfare with other influencing methods, such as fake news, diplomacy, law fare and foreign electoral intervention. Winning wars without fighting battles is the most preferred strategy/course of action.

              “Political Warfare” includes: use of elements of national power; use economic leverage; exploit technology power;  heavy investment in  intelligence resources;  Non State actors threats; dominance of information arena; antidote to disinformation; exploit fault lines of ethnic or religious bonds or other internal seams. It is all aimed to achieve end strategic objectives at least costs.

              Hybrid warfare is also typically tailored to remain below obvious detection and response thresholds, and often rely on the speed, volume and ubiquity of digital technology that characterizes the present information age. Adversaries have been violating international treaties and norms.  Ambiguity with aggression and retraction alternating as per situational needs to achieve ultimate objectives is the defining characteristic. "Gray Zone" conflict is the new terminology, which is not purely by intense political onslaught but also covers economic, informational, and military warfare that is short of conventional or nuclear war. It is on ‘grand display’ globally.

              In sum, Hybrid Warfare/Gray Zone conflict may be conducted by civilians as well as by soldiers including computer hacker attacks, trade wars and finance wars.  Anyone can exploit creativity, ambiguity, non-linearity and the cognitive elements of warfare tailored to specific vulnerabilities across the full spectrum of societal functions to achieve synergistic effects. Some view it as “the contemporary form of guerrilla warfare” that “employs both modern technology and modern mobilization methods.” By combining kinetic operations with subversive efforts, the aggressor avoids attribution or retribution.

              So, nations must prepare to not only wage conventional wars but also deter and dissuade full spectrum operations/conflicts. Prepare not only to deter linear wars, but circular wars. “Defensive knee-jerk” reactions are a sure recipe for disaster. Full mobilization of national power in all fields must be based on "Proactive" strategies against both external adversaries and internal seditionists.

              Next, understanding the nature and forms of "Power", especially 'National Power' is considered vital. Many variables constitute its holistic view: Hard power represented by Economic  Power, Security Forces Power and Technology power; and, Soft Power represented by Diplomatic power, and Sharp Power.

            Not to be left out of consideration is “National Will (Unity and Purpose) and  Great Leadership (NOT Good Leadership)", which constitute key variables of National Power.  Undeniably,  National Will is most critical. A nation divided from within is a sure recipe for self destruction.  Similarly, “Great Leadership to emerge based on a long term strategic vision” is an imperative. People may vote and opt for “Strong Leadership” to govern them; but they too succumb sooner than later to become “Spineless Wonders” due to voter bank politics.

            Even after World War 2, "Hard Power" was classically viewed as a projection of military and economic might that determined Super or Great Power Status of nations.  Military and economic coercion became key instruments. Mao stated that “Power grows out of the barrel of the GUN”. "Technology Power" constitutes a critical part of Hard Power - AI and cyber war. 

            As the Cold War era faded, "Soft Power" was coined by analysts, journalists, and policymakers in democratic countries. They viewed psychological warfare efforts from China and Russia as part of Soft Power. Soft power was used based on the positive appeal of their political ideals, and policies - democracy vs. communism or autocratic authoritarian models.

            Now, "Sharp power", a type of Hard Power, is the new lexicon. Due to the horror prospects of Nuclear Armageddon in case of all out war, adversaries all alike are increasingly taking recourse to "Sharp Power - Influence Operations Campaigns", that is, deceptive use of information for hostile purposes to destabilize and disintegrate adversaries by fake news and disinformation.

            What’s new about the Sharp Power model? It’s the speed with which disinformation can spread and the low cost of spreading it through the initiatives in the spheres of paid media, culture, think tanks, academia, social media, trolls and botnet (network of private computers infected with malicious software and controlled as a group without the owners' knowledge), along with other outlets. It is cheaper, faster, safer, and more deniable than spies. In social media, “Friends” are a click away, and fake friends are easy to fabricate; they can propagate fake news generated by paid trolls and mechanical bots.

            In public diplomacy, when Beijing’s Xinhua or Pakistan broadcasts openly in other countries, they are employing soft power, which should be accepted even if the message is unwelcome. When China Radio International covertly backs radio stations in other countries, that crosses the line into sharp power.

            Influence operations campaign clearly targets specific audiences' cultural contexts. Their emotional themes are focused on individual factors like threats to the individual’s identity, threats to a way of life or culture, reaffirmations of a person’s identity, victim affirmations and victimization. The societal factors include a sense of persistent and increasing threats, a clear alternative often involving a better future, a purported lack of a response from anyone else, clearly identified in/out groups and social validation.

            Information warfare can play a useful tactical role on the battlefield, as in the war against the Islamic State (or ISIS). But it would be a mistake for them to imitate the authoritarians and launch major programs of covert information warfare. Such actions would not stay covert for long and when revealed would undercut soft power.

            China, Pakistan and many others are targeting their audiences to impose their views and ideologies by distraction and manipulation. In particular, the powerful authoritarian regimes, which systematically suppress political pluralism and free expression to maintain power at home, are increasingly applying the same principles internationally: use fake news and social disruption to reduce the attractiveness of democracy.

                Over the past decade, China has spent tens of billions of dollars to shape public opinion and perceptions around the world, employing a diverse toolkit that includes thousands of people-to-people exchanges, wide-ranging cultural activities, the development of media enterprises with global reach, and educational programs. The most notable of these is the ever-expanding network of Confucius Institutes.

              According to George Washington University’s David Shambaugh,, China spends $10 billion a year on its soft power instruments but it has gotten minimal return on its investment. The “Soft Power 30” index ranks China 25th (and Russia 26th) out of 30 countries assessed.

      The distinction between sharp power and soft power is  hard to discern since they work in very different ways. It is the quality that distinguishes soft from sharp power. Discerning the dividing line between soft and sharp power online has become a task not only for governments and the press but also for the private sector.  So, responding to sharp power is difficult.

            China is employing the soft power of attraction (Wolf Diplomacy) as well as the coercive sharp power of disruption and censorship. These two goals are hard to combine. In Australia, for example, public approval of China was growing, until increasingly alarming accounts of its use of sharp power tools, including meddling in Australian politics, set it back considerably. Even in Africa, there is slow and steady backlash on Chinese initiatives.

           In the past, Russian sharp power  disrupted Western democratic processes and tarnished the brand of democratic countries. But, it has done little to enhance the soft power of Russia.

              India, today faces sustained "Influence Operations" on specific audiences through fake news and disinformation by a number of State and Non-State actors. For example, the ISI role in collaboration with NGOs like the Sikh for Justice Forum in the Shaheen Bagh and Farmers protests and the latest breach in PMs security are well documented and universally acknowledged by perpetrators.

            Openness of democratic societies provides opportunities for authoritarian governments to employ "influence Operations". However, democracies must be careful not to overreact.  To respond to the threat, democracies have not yet developed adequate strategies for deterrence and resilience. Soft power springs from civil societies. Openness remains the best defense. So closing down access (internet clampdowns) or ending openness would waste this crucial asset.  Such actions would undercut their own soft power by following the authoritarian model. Also, shutting down legitimate Chinese and Pakistan soft power tools can be counterproductive.

            Democracies should, therefore, be careful about offensive actions. Even with mounting use of sharp power by adversaries, they have little to fear in open competition with autocracies for Sharp Power. Like any form of power, soft power can also have positive-sum effects. For example, exchange programs can be good for all countries. Faced with this challenge, the press, academics, civic organizations, government, and the private sector should focus on exposing information warfare techniques, inoculating the public by exposure.

            In contrast,  authoritarian countries - China and Russia - have trouble generating their own soft/sharp power because of their unwillingness to free the vast talents of their civil societies.

            Viewed in the above framework, it is best left to the readers to draw their conclusions on "How Powerful  India is or can or could be in various scenarios in short, mid and long term contexts?

(To Continue - Prospects of India emerging as a Super Power?)

Article by Brig (Retd) G B Reddy Sir 

gundreddi5@gmail.com