Mismanaging Modern Wars -Dr Zia

There are numerous study centres, think tanks, and departments in every university all over the world, teaching about conflict management, resolution, crisis management, prevention, etc., without any worthwhile contribution to how to avoid modern wars. Nearly 40 percent of the world’s population is facing conflicts, wars, or war-like situation with no solution in sight. The stronger nations do not think twice before initiating a war against an Unequal Military Power (UMP), at times, without any consideration of the outcome. The Iraq War (2003-11) and the war in Afghanistan (2001-21) are examples of 21st Century wars, which were grossly mismanaged and continued for decades without any logic.

Perhaps, it is time that we start to invest in ‘War Management Studies’ instead of ‘Conflict Management’ or ‘Crisis Management,’ because it is the mismanagement of conflicts and crisis that leads to wars, and it is the mismanagement of wars that is causing the death and destruction of civilians and non-combatants. Therefore, it is necessary to study war management as a subject of Social Sciences and analyse the impacts of often irrational and ill-considered decisions by policymakers to wage wars without a well thought out minimum-damage strategy and a sound exit strategy.

Also, there is no need to go too far back in history because within two decades of the 21st Century, there have been a number of wars between UMPs which were unnecessary and have virtually destroyed a number of relatively weaker countries with no plausible gains for the aggressors, except an increase in sales of the war machines produced by their Military Industrial Complex (MIC).

The primary reason for this proposal (if it is already happening, it needs to be expanded) is to insist on minimising the damage and avoid prolonging war due to the absence of sound war management of which the exit strategy forms an important part.

Let’s have a look at the two-decades long Afghan War that started in the aftermath of the tragic incidents of 9/11. Initially, the objectives were to eliminate al-Qaeda from Afghanistan to ensure that Global War on Terror was won, and there was no danger of terror activities, particularly against the United States. However, the war continued even though al-Qaeda was neutralised much earlier than anticipated by the US. Two decades later, President Biden withdrew from Afghanistan after the US had signed an Agreement with the Taliban in Doha-Qatar on February 29, 2020, under the Trump Administration.

The post-9/11 Afghan war was grossly mismanaged in terms of its initiation, execution, continuation, and even culmination. The US failed to evaluate the resolve of the Afghan people that they do not accept foreign occupation and had defeated two global powers of the time earlier: Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The continued war did not have a well-thought or clearly defined political or military objectives that were doable or preferrable. The fight continued for years and years against the same ill-equipped but determined fighters until the US and NATO decided to call it a day. Likewise, the hasty withdrawal of world’s best armed forces demonstrated clearly that the occupation was without a purpose and unethical.

The ongoing Yemen War also presents a similar picture. The primary objective of reinstalling the Hadi government was quickly achieved, yet the war is continuing in its ninth year, with the worst famine and gross human rights violations.

The Russia-Ukraine War, which is not a war between two UMPs, because Ukraine has the moral, military, and financial support of NATO as well non-NATO allies. Therefore, I refer to this war as one between Near-Equal Military Powers (NEMPs). The war has now entered its second year with no end in sight, perhaps because the US-led NATO does  not want an end to this war, and therefore, supporting Ukraine to stand firm and keep fighting for which the MIC is happy to provide unabated support. The US’ objective is to keep Russia embroiled in an expensive war, similar to the first Afghan War. Russia, on its part, is perhaps mismanaging the war by prolonging it, even though most of the ethno-Russian bordering region is already annexed and administered autonomously.

To understand the enemy design and overcome one’s weaknesses is perhaps the most important aspect after the first bullet has been fired. Therefore, it is more important to study ‘War Management’, so that the politico-military objectives are accomplished with minimum damage to the warring nations, particularly innocent non-combatants.     

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. He can be contacted at: [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »