Theatres to Operationalise : The Unnecessary Story

"Some will argue that we being a military with limited resources still need to activate in theatres that are customised. But my debate is simple. You have enemies that are existential. Pakistan and China. Therefore your capability build up should as it is formulate the need. Thereby a structure of credentials instead of ambiguity."-

The same old narrative peddled time and again just because we are the ones in the army that wrote the story line of the movie, planet of the apes. APE THE WEST, cause most of our doctrines and terminologies also come from the western book of military nomenclatures. Borrow western ideas and somehow ensure they suit the Indian narrative of military opulence.

Theaterisation suits a form of warfare which feeds on out of area contingencies (OOAC). Where dispersed assets are mobilised to be activated concentrated for an impact. The engagement can be either extended or short. The US or the NATO constantly engage in warfare or military intervention outside the land borders of their country. For them the intervention is in multi faceted domains. Visible, psychological, physical, impactful and synchronised. It might be to assist an ally, use military power to protect an asset nation or just to be a world policing body stopping religious radicals, evil governments or dictatorship. For them mobilisation of assets is critical and therefore needs to have a command and control system that is not only integrated but jointly controlled.

India on the other hand has to deal with a messy neighbourhood. It has China in the North, which has the largest frontage and the depth to be resilient to a contact battle restricted to the borders. Infact that analogy that India can’t strike at their depths due to reach and also escalation by the Chinese, gives them the advantage. With Pakistan the sworn enemy due to ideological differences there is neither depth in Pakistan and the frontage can be easily taken care of from anywhere in India. This completely depends on systemised training, intelligent deployment and focused targeting. Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar, Srilanka and Bhutan are neighbours that can be dealt with in the diplomatic domain.

The air force argument against theatreisation therefore stands. Widely dispersed air fields give redundancy in survival and options for engagement not only on a single front war but to a two front war. The mix of aircraft’s attack, SEAD, reconnaissance etc give it resilience capability to attack even after taking on the first wave of hits. All missions do not need the same mission groupings of aircraft’s and strategy. Each mission is different, planned as an operation and aimed at achieving varied results.

Theaterisation will yet create another model of false or pseudo integration more of a show then of result oriented concrete entity. The amalgamation of strategists and planners already exist in the same building in Delhi. Where they can all beat brows in physical space. The command HQs just need adequate representation to allow joint planning and integrated application. Whatever the planning, it still has to run through several hierarchical processes. No plan is immediate, it has to be war gamed, validated through predictive analysis and thereafter applied.

For once we should just scrap this entire idea. The navy is on board cause they have nothing to lose. Their domain is strongly protected. They are the master of the seas and no one can take that from them. On the other hand the Air Force has everything to lose. Leadership, domain specialisation, protected environments and expertise.

"Let us not repair something that is not broke"