CriticalThought
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2016
- Messages
- 7,094
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
For more than a decade, the Pak Army has been involved in a grueling battle on the Western front. The key characteristics of this battle have been difficult, mountainous terrain, and a technologically and numerically inferior enemy motivated by a fanatical zeal combining guerilla like tactics with open warfare, and wielding the dishonorable weapon of terrorist attacks against soft targets.
Recently, the hard work of over a decade has started bearing fruit. As a result, we have observed a return to normalcy in some of the most unmanaged, out of control areas in northern Pakistan. Quite rightly, the Pak Army is extremely proud of this achievement. The knowledgeable reader will be well aware how the world's most modern and elite armies, with budgets running into hundreds of billions, have failed miserably in similar circumstances.
Although these successes are laudable, it would be highly disingenuous to take them as irrefutable proof of Pak Army's prowess in all modern battlefield scenarios. As a matter of fact, the astute reader will appreciate how a narrow focus on COIN can lead to a strategic imbalance in the army's capability for modern warfare. Successes in one could impair one's judgment of his ability to excel in the other.
If we take a high level view of the latest military innovations and advancements, we find that the key underpinnings are electronics, algorithms, electromagnetics, and materials science. Research in these areas has led to some truly amazing capabilities in surveillance, target acquisition, tracking, and target engagement. To the layman, these advancements create a perception that in order to win, one must amass as many advanced systems as possible. Victory shall be achieved by the party which wields more weapons that are technologically superior. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In reality, every system has weaknesses. And the key to winning on the modern battlefield is exploiting the weaknesses in the enemy's defences to neutralize his offensive and defensive capabilities. And the crucial characteristics that enable this are in-depth scientific and technical knowledge, creativity, and out of the box thinking.
Let us analyze a recent example of such out of the box thinking to winning a tehcnologically asymmetric battle. The downing of a US F-117A Nighthawk by Yugoslavia. For our analysis, we shall rely on openly available information on wikipedia. To quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown
There are many key lessons to be learnt from this story. First, we observe that the Yugoslavs had a disproportionate technological disadvantage. But more important from the Pakistani perspective is the enormous psychological barrier that existed in 1999 about American technological prowess. To a casual Pakistani observer, a 'stealth' plane made by the Americans would be undetectable. No radar system in the world could detect it, and no missile system in the world could destroy it. But the Yugoslavs displayed an indomitable spirit. Against all odds, they did not simply give up. And so, the very first lesson for modern warfare is the willingness to go all out. To do whatever it takes. To explore all possibilities. To never give up.
The second lesson is analyzing the situation from first principles. Imagine one does not have any clue about how the enemy's 'stealth' aircraft achieves the impossible. Given a basic understanding of radars, if one was to design a 'stealth' system, one would try to either absorb the incoming radiation, or scatter it in such a way that the waves do not reach back to the receiver. But, is the enemy able to achieve this in all scenarios? Are all stages of flight covered? The indomitable spirit, guided by technical knowledge, continues to probe the advanced system with what meager tools it has. In this case, Yugoslavia's outdated radar system. Combined with covert knowledge of the location of enemy's 'stealth' aircraft and the various stages of flight it goes through, the Yugoslav's pinpointed the weakness to certain flight stages.
It should be noted that the Americans themselves might not have known about these weaknesses. Hence, gaining this information was not simply a matter of espionage. The knowledge was acquired in realtime. Which leads us to our third lesson in modern warfare: one must face the unknown in war, so one must be prepared to analyze the unknown during war, using whatever tools are at one's disposal. Every encounter with the unknown capability is another opportunity to probe, to learn about its limits. Although it is vital to prepare oneself during peactime, one must be prepared to acquire knowledge on-the-fly during wartime.
So how can the Pak Army incorporate these characteristics within its ranks? The most fundamental characteristic of a modern army is the modern, creative, broadminded outlook of its rank and file. And the key element that supports such thought processes is knowledge. Given the hi-tech nature of the modern battlefields, Pak Army battle commanders and planners need an intimate knowledge of modern algorithms, computer systems, electronics, radars, missiles, and communication systems.
But equally important is the adoption of the 'hacker mentality'. The word 'hacker' usually inspires visions of computer geeks sitting in dark rooms trying to break into computer systems over the internet. But 'hacking' is a frame of mind that can be applied to any domain. The basic question a 'hacker' asks is what are the weaknesses in a system, and how can I use them to induce an outcome of my own liking? And the proficient hacker is able to acquire knowledge about a system and get a sufficient answer to this question. This mentality needs to be ingrained within the Pak Army's core battle commanders and planners.
Admittedly, transforming the army to a whole new mindset is challenging. But just in the last decade or so, the army has gone through challenging transformations. If history shows us anything, it is that once the Pak Army sets its goals, it achieves them with outstanding success. The main question is whether top Army command feels an urgent need for such a transformation.
Recently, the hard work of over a decade has started bearing fruit. As a result, we have observed a return to normalcy in some of the most unmanaged, out of control areas in northern Pakistan. Quite rightly, the Pak Army is extremely proud of this achievement. The knowledgeable reader will be well aware how the world's most modern and elite armies, with budgets running into hundreds of billions, have failed miserably in similar circumstances.
Although these successes are laudable, it would be highly disingenuous to take them as irrefutable proof of Pak Army's prowess in all modern battlefield scenarios. As a matter of fact, the astute reader will appreciate how a narrow focus on COIN can lead to a strategic imbalance in the army's capability for modern warfare. Successes in one could impair one's judgment of his ability to excel in the other.
If we take a high level view of the latest military innovations and advancements, we find that the key underpinnings are electronics, algorithms, electromagnetics, and materials science. Research in these areas has led to some truly amazing capabilities in surveillance, target acquisition, tracking, and target engagement. To the layman, these advancements create a perception that in order to win, one must amass as many advanced systems as possible. Victory shall be achieved by the party which wields more weapons that are technologically superior. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In reality, every system has weaknesses. And the key to winning on the modern battlefield is exploiting the weaknesses in the enemy's defences to neutralize his offensive and defensive capabilities. And the crucial characteristics that enable this are in-depth scientific and technical knowledge, creativity, and out of the box thinking.
Let us analyze a recent example of such out of the box thinking to winning a tehcnologically asymmetric battle. The downing of a US F-117A Nighthawk by Yugoslavia. For our analysis, we shall rely on openly available information on wikipedia. To quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown
There are many key lessons to be learnt from this story. First, we observe that the Yugoslavs had a disproportionate technological disadvantage. But more important from the Pakistani perspective is the enormous psychological barrier that existed in 1999 about American technological prowess. To a casual Pakistani observer, a 'stealth' plane made by the Americans would be undetectable. No radar system in the world could detect it, and no missile system in the world could destroy it. But the Yugoslavs displayed an indomitable spirit. Against all odds, they did not simply give up. And so, the very first lesson for modern warfare is the willingness to go all out. To do whatever it takes. To explore all possibilities. To never give up.
The second lesson is analyzing the situation from first principles. Imagine one does not have any clue about how the enemy's 'stealth' aircraft achieves the impossible. Given a basic understanding of radars, if one was to design a 'stealth' system, one would try to either absorb the incoming radiation, or scatter it in such a way that the waves do not reach back to the receiver. But, is the enemy able to achieve this in all scenarios? Are all stages of flight covered? The indomitable spirit, guided by technical knowledge, continues to probe the advanced system with what meager tools it has. In this case, Yugoslavia's outdated radar system. Combined with covert knowledge of the location of enemy's 'stealth' aircraft and the various stages of flight it goes through, the Yugoslav's pinpointed the weakness to certain flight stages.
It should be noted that the Americans themselves might not have known about these weaknesses. Hence, gaining this information was not simply a matter of espionage. The knowledge was acquired in realtime. Which leads us to our third lesson in modern warfare: one must face the unknown in war, so one must be prepared to analyze the unknown during war, using whatever tools are at one's disposal. Every encounter with the unknown capability is another opportunity to probe, to learn about its limits. Although it is vital to prepare oneself during peactime, one must be prepared to acquire knowledge on-the-fly during wartime.
So how can the Pak Army incorporate these characteristics within its ranks? The most fundamental characteristic of a modern army is the modern, creative, broadminded outlook of its rank and file. And the key element that supports such thought processes is knowledge. Given the hi-tech nature of the modern battlefields, Pak Army battle commanders and planners need an intimate knowledge of modern algorithms, computer systems, electronics, radars, missiles, and communication systems.
But equally important is the adoption of the 'hacker mentality'. The word 'hacker' usually inspires visions of computer geeks sitting in dark rooms trying to break into computer systems over the internet. But 'hacking' is a frame of mind that can be applied to any domain. The basic question a 'hacker' asks is what are the weaknesses in a system, and how can I use them to induce an outcome of my own liking? And the proficient hacker is able to acquire knowledge about a system and get a sufficient answer to this question. This mentality needs to be ingrained within the Pak Army's core battle commanders and planners.
Admittedly, transforming the army to a whole new mindset is challenging. But just in the last decade or so, the army has gone through challenging transformations. If history shows us anything, it is that once the Pak Army sets its goals, it achieves them with outstanding success. The main question is whether top Army command feels an urgent need for such a transformation.
