Daily Times

Carl von Clausewitz, one of the most celebrated and read military strategists of all times, once opined that “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” Read this dictum of Clausewitz in conjunction with another prophetic dictum by Carl von Bismarck that, “Politics is Art of the Possible.” It becomes clear that wars were and perhaps remain an integral part of politics. If wars are accepted as a norm, and part of the political process, as per the realist’s paradigm also, then why do we make so much hue and cry on wars and conflicts? Also, why do we invest so much in arms control and disarmament treaties, agreements, conferences, and protocols?

Let’s bring in the Chinese sage Sun Tzu, who had said some 2500 years ago that, “The acme of skills lies in winning the war without fighting.” The same is evident in China’s peaceful rise to the top. However, European strategists have always favoured wars as a political process since the days of Nicolo Machiavelli or even before. This author’s views are more aligned with that of Sun Tzu, “Win the War by Other Means.” It is certainly in defiance of Clausewitzian precepts and the realist’s paradigm, primarily because modern wars are too expensive and overly destructive. Moreover, nearly all the wars of the 21st Century have been between the Unequal Military Powers (UMPs) in which the weaker states were destroyed, and the stronger ones had to leave them at the mercy of the local warlords: Afghanistan.

Perhaps, gone are the days when military muscle alone could win the war by practically defeating the enemy. The present-day wars are very expensive, technologically intensive, and fought cross-domain, if between two equal or near-equal powers. However, the wars between unequal military powers (UMPs) remain inconclusive because there are no clear winners or losers. There is no denying that the weaker of the two gets destroyed, but the stronger also cannot hold its ground. Afghanistan and Yemen are two diverse examples of Russia deeply embroiled in Ukraine.

Wars were and perhaps remain an integral part of politics.

All-out wars were always hybrid in nature and character, even if the terminology is a little over two decades old. However, in earlier times, the kinetic application used to lead the operations, whereas now due to unpopularity and cost of the kinetic operations, non-kinetic operations take the lead against the target state, and that is too much before the physical launch of military actions.

The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine might fall in the category of Near-Equal Military Powers (NEMPs), particularly after the requisite support of the US and other European countries. The external support for Ukraine (financial and military) may not be enough to stop Russian advances towards the west, but still help the Ukrainians to put up a brave face.

Winning the war by other means does not mean a combination of warfare, but the strategy part of the warfare, and it may include convincing the enemy that it will be losing the contest if it resists. Applying this dictum retrospectively on the second Afghan war, the US could have given more time to the Taliban government for the handing over of Osama bin Laden, instead of an immediate military operation. After, two decades of staying in Afghanistan and handing over the reins to the Taliban again, the US might be thinking that it was not worth it, and it became evident with its hasty withdrawal also. Perhaps, it may have been far cheaper and easier to eliminate Al Qaeda leadership through Intelligence-Based Operations (IBOs), instead of Tora Bora bombings that bore no fruit.

Russia has had historical, socio-cultural, and ethnolinguistic ties with Ukraine for ages. It should have convinced Ukraine that it would be far more beneficial for the country and its people to remain on this side instead of joining the rivals’ camp: NATO. On the other hand, Ukraine also should have calculated its cost-benefit analysis before Russia reached its point of no return. This war is entering into an extremely dangerous corridor, where Russia’s former President and incumbent Deputy Chairman of the Security Council has clearly stated that Russia will have no option but to use nuclear weapons if the Ukrainian counteroffensive succeeds.

Wars have always been dangerous, destructive, and detestable for the liberalists, but preferable, and easier to wage by the realists under the banner of National Interests. However, at the beginning of the 21st Century, a relatively new terminology of hybrid warfare was added to the strategic literature, though the concept dates back to Chinese sage Sun Tzu’s prophetic dicta that one must aim to win the war without fighting. This author’s dicta that ‘win the war by other means’ is inspired by Sun Tzu.

The need to win the argument by other means through the formulation of non-militaristic strategies may help nations avoid large-scale destruction of the target states, and yet achieve the political objectives.

Dr. Zia ul Haq is the author of the book ‘Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan’. He is presently working as the Director of the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies (CASS)