This essay was first published here by the Friday Times on Dec. 20, 2023.
War is an enduring and ugly feature of human society. Though humanity would be far better off focusing on more enlightened pursuits, the carnage consuming Palestine and Ukraine shows what happens to those nations that do not adequately prepare to protect themselves. The following discussion is predicated on the belief that the best way to prepare for peace is to first prepare for war, which is an inherently evolutionary process. Just as human societies are constantly evolving, the way we fight does too. Those who cannot adapt to how technological changes impact the way nations fight each other are doomed to go extinct. As such, military officers across the world should be furiously studying the wars in Palestine, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan for insights that can help them better prepare for their next fight.
Each of these wars contains lessons for Pakistan’s military planners, but they should be particularly interested in the war in Ukraine due to the many parallels between both nations. Like Ukraine, Pakistan shares a long, vulnerable border with a much larger and hostile neighbor to its east. One that has built a massive force of tanks designed to strike deep into its territory and enjoys significant numerical advantages with respect to men and material.
One important difference is that, unlike Ukraine, Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s military leaders have developed a doctrine based on using low yield tactical devices to protect themselves, but it is vitally important they prepare for scenarios that do not involve these weapons. Even if the odds are low, they must prepare for all contingencies. Just as the crossbow once rendered the armored knight obsolete, it is inevitable a new weapon or technology will emerge one day that renders nuclear weapons or their delivery systems obsolete too.
Even if they are available for use, detonating nuclear devices to stop advancing Indian armor must be a last resort due to the toxic impact they would have on Pakistan’s already fragile environment. Even if such tactics were successful, they would only provide a pyrrhic victory that would leave many parts of Pakistan’s most fertile land a radioactive cesspool. It is therefore imperative Pakistan’s military prepare to repel an Indian invasion using only conventional weapons. Thankfully, the war in Ukraine offers an excellent opportunity to study how given the way its military has stymied Russia’s advances while inflicting unprecedented casualties on its forces.
Lesson 1: the importance of combined arms and integrating drones into the order of battle
Though not exactly a new lesson, the war in Ukraine has reinforced the importance of mastering combined arms operations, which involves using different assets like tanks and infantry together, in a mutually reinforcing way. Russia’s lumbering assault during the early days of its invasion prevented it from taking Ukraine’s capital city of Kiev and exposed its overextended forces to the nimble counterattack of Ukrainian artillery, armor, infantry armed with anti-tank weapons, drones, special operations troops, snipers, and information warfare specialists. These different units all worked together to wreak havoc and confusion on their enemies. Russia’s troops, on the other hand, did not work together to reinforce each other. Instead, its armor often advanced without proper support or coordination with infantry or air assets, making them easy targets for Ukraine’s forces.
The real lesson here is not in the value of combined arms, which has been obvious for a long time, but in appreciating that the list of weapons platforms that must be combined into a cohesive fighting force has grown considerably longer. Whereas older generations of soldiers merely had to integrate infantry, armor, artillery, and air support, today’s troops will need to add drones, loitering munitions, missiles, rockets, and even social media that can provide open-source intelligence into their arsenals. Ukraine’s ability to integrate these different assets into its order of battle was a key factor in allowing it to stop Russia’s advances and target its supply lines and rear areas. This allowed it to kill an unprecedented number of Russian troops, decimating many of its units. According to retired Admiral James Stavridis, Ukraine’s tactics fused “intelligence provided by the West; the portability of the missile and drone systems,” allowing it to destroy thousands of Russian tanks, armored fighting vehicles, and heavy trucks while killing an estimated 30,000-47,000 of its soldiers (by way of comparison, Russia lost a total of 14,500 soldiers during the entirety of its ten year occupation of Afghanistan).
Out of all these new weapon systems, drones are obviously the most important while tactical missiles are a close second. Ukraine’s ability to use drones for offensive operations, gathering intelligence, as automated mines, and even for medical evacuations should, by itself, occupy students of warfare for years. Their importance is also confirmed by the results of Azerbaijan’s offensive against Armenian forces in Nagorno-Karabakh which introduced the world to Turkey’s now famous Bayraktar drone platform. Much like Ukraine’s military, Azerbaijan’s extensive use of drones to scout the location of enemy units and then deliver precision fire onto those targets played a pivotal role in allowing it to retake its lost territory. One of the factors that made both nations’ use of drones so effective was the degree to which they were used in conjunction with other assets like artillery and rockets and the way troops on the front lines were able to use them to coordinate strikes with command elements in rear areas.
The key point is that Pakistan’s military must invest in drones and missiles of all shapes, sizes, and functions and it must integrate them within all levels of its forces from the squad and platoon level to the divisional headquarters level to ensure their maximum effectiveness. Drones and tactical missiles are not just the latest military technology of import, but also represent a cost-effective way to counter India’s numerical advantages. Ukraine has been able to use relatively cheap drones and anti-tank weapons that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to destroy multi-million dollar tanks, aircraft and naval vessels. For example, one of its naval drones only costs $433,000 dollars, which is a bargain compared to the vessels it is designed to sink. Pakistan would be wise to invest in similar capabilities.
Lesson 2: the need to operate in dispersed formations
One of the more important developments in Ukraine has been the use of drones, open-source intelligence, and satellites to provide targeting information for artillery, aircraft, missiles, and rockets. This has allowed Ukrainian forces to attack large formations of Russian troops and personnel from vast distances. In one instance, it launched a missile strike on the headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, killing many of its top officers, including its commander Vice Admiral Victor Solokov. In another, it killed 400 Russian troops in a staging area using America’s HIMARS rocket system. But these are just two of many examples that highlight its ability to attack troops miles from the front or deep within Russian territory.
The ability to launch precise strikes on troop formations over long distances has brought home the need to disperse formations into smaller units. This issue was raised in the nineteenth century by the famous German strategist Von Moltke when he discussed the need to “march divided; strike united” but now takes on heightened importance.
Armies will need to hide their troops and weapons over wide geographical areas but still use them in a coordinated fashion. This will require devolving command down to junior officers in the field as much as possible and teaching them to act independently. Massing troops or tanks against an enemy like India which has satellites, drones, and long-range strike capabilities will be tantamount to suicide.
3. the need for secure communications
The implications of lessons 1 and 2 lead us to our next point. The need for secure communications networks cannot be overstated. Ukraine’s ability to use drones so effectively is based, in part, on its access to American satellites and communications support which allows it to securely coordinate forces in the field. Operating drones, integrating open-source intelligence from social media with artillery and missile units, and dispersing formations over large geographical areas cannot happen without a secure and reliable communications network. That means satellites, encryption, and cyber warfare capabilities to protect one’s network while attacking or exploiting the enemy’s network. For example, many of the Russian flag officers killed by Ukrainian forces were likely betrayed by their own cell phones, and Ukraine’s ability to track them.
Here, Pakistan relies mostly on Chinese equipment and expertise and will certainly benefit from its ally’s growing capabilities in all these areas, especially those related to satellites. However, India will still have an edge for two reasons. One, as its recent lunar mission shows, it has already developed strong indigenous capabilities in this area. And two, its growing relationship with America and Israel will give it access to cutting edge technology related to AI and quantum computers over the next few decades that could enable it to successfully monitor or disrupt Pakistani communications during a war.
Pakistan must work to overcome its critical weaknesses in these areas by investing in developing the necessary indigenous capabilities as well as a backup plan should India disrupt its communications networks. To that end, studying the low-tech tactics used by Hamas to evade Israel’s expansive signals intelligence net would be wise. Whether it uses advanced satellites or pigeons is irrelevant so long as it develops a plan with lots of redundancies to maintain control over its forces in the face of sophisticated and wide-ranging attempts to disrupt that control.
Lesson 4: denying the enemy air and naval supremacy is an effective substitute for achieving it1
In terms of fighter aircraft and naval assets, Russia vastly outnumbers Ukraine. However, Ukraine has managed to deny Russia both air and naval superiority, in part, by using anti-aircraft and anti-ships missiles to inflict heavy casualties, including sinking Russia’s flagship vessel, the Moscova and destroying 90 of its planes. It has also protected its forces by dispersing and constantly moving its own assets.
Rather than pursuing the unrealistic goal of achieving air or naval superiority, Ukraine has focused on denying Russia this ability. In doing so, it has maintained freedom of action for itself in both domains while forcing Russia to think twice before deploying its own assets.
The implications should be obvious for Pakistan as it suffers from comparable numerical disadvantages. Instead of trying to match India ship for ship or fighter for fighter, investing in sea and air denial capabilities like anti-aircraft and missile defense systems capable of intercepting hypersonic cruise missiles and drones would be a more prudent allocation of resources. The ability to launch and defend missile barrages and long-range drone attacks will play a crucial role in the wars of the next few decades.
As the war in Gaza shows, those who cannot protect themselves from such attacks will suffer mightily. While those like Israel, who can, will gain a significant advantage. In fact, Iran and Hezballoh did not enter the fight after Oct. 7th precisely because they know Israel’s air defenses, like its Iron Dome system, can protect it from their missile attacks, while they cannot protect themselves from Israel’s air force.
With respect to targeting India’s navy, the use of drones and long-distance munitions guided by satellites would prove invaluable and highlight once more the importance of acquiring such capabilities. By using such methods along with naval drones that can act as mines, Pakistan could exact a heavy toll on any attempt by India to impose a naval blockade on its cities for a relative bargain.
Lesson 5: supply chains and the need for self-reliance
Modern wars require sophisticated and expensive weapons platforms like advanced fighters, tanks, and satellites. They also require consumables like the unbelievably large number of shells, bullets, bombs, missiles, and rockets expended in Ukraine and Gaza. Within just the first month of the war, Ukraine went through 17,000 Javelin anti-tank weapons. Russia is estimated to be using 20,000 artillery shells a day compared to 4,000 for Ukraine. Similarly, Israel used 25,000 tons of explosives and 100,000 shells to destroy Gaza in just six weeks.
The resources spent acquiring weapons, the high consumption rate of battlefield items, and the extent to which these must be imported from allied nations raises the age-old debate of guns versus butter and the degree to which nations must be self-reliant in such matters. There are several layers to this dilemma. Pakistan must build or acquire a range of new weapons like drones and missile defense systems that will cost billions. It must ensure it has the capacity to replenish its supplies during a war. And it must pay for all this without destroying its economy while still providing the social services its people so desperately need. Which raises the question of how.
Israel, Azerbaijan, and Ukraine have all received substantial support from allies in supplying their forces. Azerbaijan benefited from Turkish and Israeli weapons and training. Ukraine received $44 billion in arms from America while Israel has received $260 billion over the decades.
Having powerful allies certainly helps, but developing an excessive dependance on them is not the answer. Ukraine is very likely to learn this lesson the hard way if a Republican wins the Presidency next year and cuts off America’s support. Even Israel’s need for a steady delivery of munitions or to have two American aircraft carriers positioned nearby highlights its long-term vulnerabilities if it must ever survive on its own.
Pakistan is following a similar path by making itself dependent on China for its military and economic needs. This is a crucial mistake. Pakistan may consider China its “iron brother” but that ignores the simple fact that no one knows what the future will bring. China’s political system is inherently unstable in the same way all authoritarian dictatorships are. Believing China will always be there to help is more of a child’s wish, than a strategy and ignores a universal truth. No state that wishes to be certain it can protect the lives of its citizens can become dependent on another state for its basic security needs. As the Muslim world’s colonial past illustrates, this is the path to servitude and conquest, not freedom. The evidence provided by the historical record leaves no doubt; when it comes to matters of defense, a nation must be self-reliant.
To make itself self-reliant, Pakistan must embrace democracy. As explained previously, democratic political systems are ideally suited to building and sustaining military power in the modern age. They are the best at generating the wealth, technology, industrial capabilities, and well-trained soldiers needed to field powerful militaries. Pakistan must also create a business-friendly environment by minimizing red tape and regulation, and an honest and efficient court system and law enforcement apparatus. Democracy and the rule of law go hand in hand. One cannot function without the other.
These reforms will be necessary if Pakistan’s leaders ever hope to build an advanced industrial sector. The key to protecting Pakistan is not just importing more tanks or bombs but building an industrial and scientific base that can continually design and manufacture the next generation of weapons. Building one will also require investing in its public education system and universities. Of course, there is no point in building schools if their students are not given a proper education that encourages them to think for themselves. That requires creating an intellectual climate where people are free to speak their minds and express themselves.
In addition to these political, economic, legal, and social reforms, Pakistan must get its finances in order. In 2021, its government collected only 10.4% of GDP in tax receipts. The average for Asian nations is 19.1%. Pakistan must bridge this gap while bringing more of its estimated $180 billion informal economy into the taxpaying realm. Taxing just a third of its informal economy while getting its tax collection rates to 15% would boost revenues by over $20 billion.
Implementing these reforms has proven impossible because they would require gutting Pakistan’s government agencies from top to bottom, modernizing them, and then subjecting them to vigilant oversight to make sure public funds are spent where they are needed rather than stolen by corrupt bureaucrats and politicians. In other words, Pakistan’s elites must do what they have adamantly refused to do for decades: build a modern administrative state and the competent tax, law enforcement, regulatory, and judicial agencies that come with it. Instead of providing these desperately needed public services, Pakistan’s leaders have hijacked their government to enrich themselves.
Like most Muslim nations, Pakistan’s government is non-democratic, non-responsive to the needs of its people, and excessively authoritarian. Its generals, both retired and active duty, hold the lion’s share of the country’s political, economic, and military power. They have created the veneer of democracy, but no true democracy can function properly with the military as its center. Their actions even go against the advice of one of the Muslim world’s greatest thinkers. Ibn Khaldun warned centuries ago that military commanders or “Amirs” should never go into business for themselves. It eventually ruins a nation’s economic foundation and tax base, impoverishing and destroying it in the process.
Sadly, Pakistan’s generals will never voluntarily give up their power or their business interests since they feed off and reinforce each other. Which is a pity, because their time would be better spent focusing on how the developments heralded by the many wars raging around the world might impact their doctrine and tactics. Better yet, they should be in the field, constantly training to hone and perfect their skills, which must be varied and versatile. The soldiers of today must be able to punch and counterpunch in a variety of settings. They must be adept at urban warfare, maneuver warfare, and preparing and protecting static defenses in depth. The fluidity of war demands troops who can handle a variety of contingencies. That requires constant training for different scenarios and practicing different skills. Business ventures, corporate farming, and political machinations are all a distraction from these more important pursuits. Instead of assigning infantry and intelligence officers to the NAB, the army should be billeting officers to posts that will help them be better soldiers.
Pakistan’s refusal to change, even though it has lost every war it has fought with India, has also prevented it from building the sort of strategic depth with its Muslim neighbors that could help it resist Indian hegemony. Yet one more benefit of democracy is that it makes creating strong alliances, like the one Europe’s nations created after WW2, much easier. The Muslim world’s lack of democracy has not only kept its nations individually weak and backwards, but it has also prevented them from meaningfully connecting to each other. Secular democracy is the key to uniting the Muslim world, whereas ideologies like those articulated by the Taliban or ISIS will only keep its incredibly diverse nations and people divided.
Lesson 6: the need for strategic depth
While self-reliance may be essential to ensuring one’s freedom, nations still need allies. Developing strong alliances is an important facet of augmenting a nation’s geo-political strength. But they must be the right kind of alliance.
Pakistan’s alliance with China, as currently structured, is counter to its long-term interests. Putting aside China’s repression of the Uighurs, which is enough by itself to question the viability of this pairing, Pakistan has become dependent on importing Chinese expertise, capital, and goods, stunting its own development in the process. Instead of building a neo-colonial relationship with China, Pakistan must build alliances that help it develop its own capabilities. CPEC is designed to turn Pakistan into a shipping and distribution hub for the goods China makes. If Pakistan wants real wealth and power, it must learn to manufacture its own goods, raise its own capital, and develop its own expertise.
The allies most suited to helping it achieve these goals are Turkey and Iran. The former’s advanced industrial base and weapon’s industry and the latter’s advanced missile and space programs would prove vital in helping Pakistan improve its capabilities in these areas. Building a free trade zone and increasing military cooperation between these three nations would not only provide Pakistan the strategic depth it has always sought, but represents a smart, long term move for each country. One that would significantly improve each nation’s geo-political position. As the author has already argued on many occasions, these countries have the potential to form the core of a new Muslim security organization similar to NATO and a powerful economic bloc of over 400,000,000 million people.
Like all good ideas, an alliance between Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran recommends itself on many levels. Ideally, it would help Pakistan develop enough power to dissuade India from ever attacking it. Failing that, it would give Pakistan the power to decisively defeat an Indian attack. In a worst-case scenario, it could also form the basis for a network to supply an anti-India insurgency in the event such efforts ever became necessary. In this regard, developing close ties with Iran is extremely important.
The idea of attaining strategic depth is a concept most Pakistanis are already familiar with, though it is typically and unimaginatively limited to the Afghan context. Pakistan’s narrow width and the vulnerability of its key population and industrial centers has long been a source of worry for its leaders. Events in Ukraine have only highlighted the validity of their concerns. Despite launching a clumsy offensive that failed to reach its primary objectives and suffering heavy casualties, Russia’s military still managed to capture and occupy 110,000 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory during the first month of its invasion. It still controls roughly 60,000 square kilometers of this territory. The implications for Pakistan are extremely worrying. Russian numerical superiority was simply too overwhelming to prevent it from taking at least some territory. Luckily, Ukraine is a large country, and its capital is located far from Russian territory. As such, it was able to absorb these losses.
Pakistan’s ability to cede land is far more limited. Nonetheless, a determined Indian attack could very easily lead to captured territory. Over the long run, dispersing India’s forces over a wide swath of hostile territory would ultimately turn to Pakistan’s advantage so long as it can still maintain organized resistance. Building joint infrastructure and weapons production facilities with Iran represents the most obvious way to do that. Geography, religion, and their shared mutual interests all dictate that Pakistan and Iran form an alliance. Each even has ports the other could use to break a blockade. Unfortunately, the Muslim world is in such a pitiful state these days that Iran’s Chabahar Port is under management with an Indian company, which means it is far more likely to be used to destabilize Pakistan than protect it.
China would do its best to keep Pakistan armed in the event of a war with India, but the supply lines that connect them are extremely vulnerable to attack. Due to India’s naval superiority in the Indian Ocean and the ease with which it could target the Karakoram highway, China’s attempts to replenish Pakistan’s stocks could easily be interdicted by India. Iran, on the other hand, would provide the perfect base to build factories in a safe and accessible area.
Pakistan has failed to develop strong economic or military ties with Iran, despite the obvious benefits, primarily because neither America nor the Arabs would react well. Here again, we see the consequences of Pakistan’s fragile political economy. Its leaders are so beholden to America and their Arab patrons, they are not even free to pursue a strategy that would drastically improve their nation’s economic and geo-strategic position.
Pakistan’s leaders would do well to remind those Arab nations that complain about its pursuit of brotherly relations with Iran of their own multi-billion dollar investments in India. Similarly, if America is free to arm and invest in India, then Pakistan must also be free to build its relationship with Iran. America has no right to prevent neighbors from trading with each other and Pakistan’s leaders must not give in to its blackmail and threats. Even if America were to punish Pakistan by refusing to trade with it, the late Zia Ul-Haq would probably describe losing $6 billion in exports as mere “peanuts” compared to the revenue properly linking with Iran and Turkey could generate.
While Pakistan should strive for good relations with America, it must not sacrifice its vital interests to appease it. Linking with its Muslim neighbors, particularly Iran, is Pakistan’s surest and most logical path to building the strength needed to protect itself. Connecting with them is far more important to Pakistan’s long-term interests and survival than maintaining its perpetually strained and disappointing relationship with America.
Lesson 7: the price of failure
One does not need to be a student of war to understand the devastation being visited upon the poor people of Gaza. The Israeli military has already killed at least 18,412 people, roughly 70% of whom were women and children. Out of all the lessons discussed thus far, it is the rubble of Gaza that holds the most important ones. Those charged with protecting Pakistan should spend several hours staring at pictures of Gaza’s smashed and bloodied babies or the burial pits filled with their bodies. They should intently study the blocks of rubble that once held homes, mosques, and shops but now serve as tombs for countless innocent women and children. This is the price of failure. This is what the supposedly enlightened, liberal West is still capable of doing to those it considers less than human. Those who believe Gaza is the exception, not the rule, have clearly not been paying attention. It is hardly the only part of the Muslim world that has been subject to such violence. Chechnya, Kashmir, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan. The list is long, depressing, and barely scratches the surface.
If Pakistan’s leaders do not drastically change course, Lahore’s children could very easily suffer the same fate as Gaza’s thirty years from now. If India is using American made missiles and jets to inflict this pain, no one will stop it. No one will help.
The “rules based” international order touted by the West does not exist. The only discernible rule is that America and its allies are allowed to do as they please while the rest of the world must follow their rules. The truth is that America and Russia broke the international system that was supposed to guarantee peace after WW2. Since defeating the Nazis, these two nations have invaded numerous countries, supported coups or violent insurgencies in many others, and flooded the world with their weapons. Their actions have infected the world’s nations with a lust for war and the means to act on their worst impulses.
Ideally, Pakistan, India, and China should learn from their colonial past by cooperating and working together rather than waste their money enriching Western or Russian arms dealers. War is never the ideal solution. But given the world we live in; it is one all sane governments must prepare for. As nations fill their arsenals with deadlier and deadlier weapons, the devastation they visit upon each other will only grow in intensity and cruelty. Pakistan’s leaders must prepare accordingly by focusing on long-term solutions that can ensure they have the resources needed to protect their country.
The amount of resources each nation must devote to such matters is determined by their unique geopolitical situation. Given the right-wing lunacy gripping India and the degree to which America is arming its new ally, Pakistan finds itself confronted by an increasingly dangerous, powerful, and hostile neighbor. While it must certainly consider how its own actions have contributed to India’s hostility and work towards peace, its leaders must also take a clear-eyed view of the ramifications of India’s growing power and belligerence. As its arsenal grows, the desire to use it will too.
- The ideas discussed in this section borrowed heavily from the ideas expressed by Stephen Biddle in his article about the war in Ukraine published by Foreign Affairs Magazine. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/back-trenches-technology-warfare
