Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Gaza show the same pattern in different forms. Stronger militaries can destroy infrastructure, seize territory and impose costs. But those gains do not automatically produce legitimacy, stability or political compliance.
The weaker side does not always need to win. It often only needs to survive, deny the stronger side its objectives and prolong the contest until political costs rise.
That changes the meaning of victory, writes Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain, Bihar Governor and former Commander of Chinar Corps.
Modern warfare is shaped not just by firepower, but by nuclear deterrence, economic interdependence, information warfare, global media, drones, cyber capabilities and domestic political will. The battlefield is only one part of the contest.
This has implications for every major power, including China. Taiwan and the Line of Actual Control are not merely military questions. Even successful tactical action can create wider diplomatic, economic and strategic consequences.
For India, the lesson is clear. Military power remains indispensable. Deterrence must be credible. Borders must be secured.
But military strength works best when it is tied to clear political objectives, strong diplomacy, economic resilience, technological capability and social cohesion.
The old staff-college principle still holds: political and military objectives must remain aligned.
What has changed is the difficulty of achieving that alignment in modern conflict. Victory today is not just about winning wars. It is about knowing whether the political outcome sought can be achieved by military means alone.
Click on the link to read Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain’s column for BasisPoint: Can Military Superiority Still Deliver Political Success?
basispointinsight.com/Story/…
@atahasnain53
#ModernWarfare #StrategicSuccess #PoliticalObjectives #Deterrence