6. Wars Routines - Sir Zia - Article thematic Image 1

The problem with realists is that they are not only selfish but also very stubborn in their approach. Moreover, human lives are not important to them and they do not fear the rise of peoplism.

Without undermining the significance of the state in the present international system, it is necessary to emphasize the importance of the people, without whom the state would just be a piece of land. Remember, for a state to be viable and legitimate, it has to have a defined territory, a legitimate government, and above all the people.

While all wars are the same with little variations in the character, I look at the ongoing war in Europe from a different perspective, because I define WAR as the Waste of Available Resources. When I first published this definition in my book, Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management between India and Pakistan, I was immediately labelled as an Idealist or a Liberalist. Then I came up with my theory of Realism with Z. I argued that I am replacing S with Z because S is representing the Selfishness of the realists, whereas Z is representing Realization by the stakeholders.

My problem with war is not the sound of fighter jets, because I am a fighter pilot by profession, but the human lives, and that too of the non-combatants. Those who do not know who has hit them and why. Likewise, the soldiers carrying out the attack do not know who they are attacking and how many children, women, or the old are behind this wall. We have seen this in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. We are seeing this every day in Palestine, Kashmir, Yemen, and most currently in Ukraine.

The twentieth century saw two Great Wars and several protracted wars and conflicts, over 100 years, the twenty-first century has already seen concurrent wars and conflicts across many regions. While Palestine and Kashmir are still burning, Yemen and Syria are engaged in an unending conflict with multiple stakeholders. These two wars in the Middle East are not only complex but also have the potential to expand horizontally as well as vertically.

While the developing nations were still grappling with the aftershocks of the pandemic, two of the largest food-producing states in the world: Russia and Ukraine engaged themselves in one of the most violent conflicts of the twenty-first century in Europe. The war has now entered into the seventh month with no predictable end in sight. Russia may not have achieved a quick victory but it has been able to test the resolve of the US-led western supporters of Ukraine to its limit. On the other hand, Ukrainians may have put up a brave effort, but the fact of the matter is it is fast losing ground that Russia may never leave in an endeavour to keep a buffer zone between its new territorial borders with potential NATO countries.

There is little doubt that all wars are unnecessary, but the twenty-first-century wars were and still are unwarranted. Beginning the century with the Second Afghan War after the unfortunate happenings of 9/11, the US decision to go to war and its withdrawal after two decades of dismay and destruction, are both questionable. Neither was an attack on Afghanistan within weeks of 9/11 advisable without a proper investigation nor was the hasty withdrawal of August 15, 2021, following Doha Agreement with the same Taliban who were declared responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Likewise, the Second Gulf War against Iraq for the want of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq also rested on fake intelligence folders and achieved nothing except the killing of Saddam Hussein, perhaps to satisfy the ego of the US leadership.

Staying in the Middle East, Yemen War has entered into its 8th year, with no practicable end in sight. It is necessary to mention that the initiators had envisaged and claimed that the politico-military objectives would be achieved within weeks. Yemen is facing famine and an extremely precarious human rights situation.

Moving to Europe, where people are not used to listening to the thunders of wars and conflicts, are now facing the deadliest war in their heartland. The racist statements by certain people in the initial days of war were heart breaking for the people of developing countries, which have been at the mercy of aggression by the developed west for a very long time.

Unfortunately, the powerful nation’s adoption of war as an instrument of policy has become a routine and that too as a tool of the first choice, instead of a last resort. Moreover, the lack of legal instruments that could have deterred the aggressors is also causing disappointments with international organizations responsible for protecting the weaker states against the stronger ones. Unless a serious effort is made in this regard, the wars and conflicts will continue to be treated as routine affairs, causing deaths and destruction in developing countries.

Dr Zia Ul Haque Shamsi is the author of ‘Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management between India and Pakistan’ and ‘South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace.’ He is presently working as Director (Peace and Conflict Studies) at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was first published in Daily Times. He can be contacted at: [email protected]

Image Credit: Online Sources


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »