The Domain of Victory: Primacy of Land Operations - Why the Human Element Still Decides Modern War

Modern war uses technologies such as drones, hypersonic ammunition and cyber warfare. This leads to the perception that modern warfare can take place remotely and even be managed virtually. Yet, geography remains decisive and the possession of territories is vital for winning.

Precision bombs and remote wars lead to a different understanding of warfare. Geographic barriers create a new reality for countries such as India. Being surrounded with a disputed border with China covering 3,488 km and similar border with Pakistan stretching for 3,323 km, modern Indian wars cannot be conducted remotely.  

The ownership of the territory defines the sovereignty of a nation and ensures political stability in the long term.

The era of voluntarily yielding territories belongs to history. The loss of even an inch of territory is a matter of pain in the psyche of the country. An enormous change in the security mentality occurs, creating higher expectations for governments among citizens.

The Illusion of the Clean War 

The advantage of remote war is its cleanliness. Thanks to precision arms, one may imagine victory when ground forces are not required. That idea may be applicable for remote conflicts, but events prove otherwise.

During Operation Epic Fury, in which air forces of the USA and Israel attacked Iran, more than 900 air strikes within 12 hours successfully disrupted Iranian missile attacks. Nevertheless, Iran did not concede.

The Strait of Hormuz remained blocked, oil prices rose and the threat of escalation remained. What mattered in this case is not the efficacy of the air strike but the threat of an American ground invasion. Although America did not engage in a ground attack on Iran, the country showed its respect to the ground forces of Iran.

The point is that air power is used to defeat the opponent, but it can neither capture nor conquer territories. Air power and navy operate as enablers of war; ground forces are responsible for the changes and development of state institutions.

The role of navy is no less constrained. Contemporary naval forces operate at extended ranges to avoid the impact of the A2/AD system on land and missiles. Despite technical achievements, littoral zones continue to be contested and land-based denial capabilities become even more effective. Other military forces do not possess coercive finality because victory needs to be felt by the defeated party, as every Indian war showed.

The Tyranny of Contiguous Borders

India faces a specific security environment, depending on geography. Adversaries of India are close to using tanks and soldiers near the Indian borders. Even in the Galwan Valley clash in June 2020, it turned out that issues in high altitudes can be solved only by human soldiers and not unmanned systems.

No missile attack took place because everything was under the control of ground troops. From these facts, it follows that the presence of the human element in terrain becomes crucial when the definition of sovereignty is based on the human presence in territory.

Even though standoff weapons such as missiles and drones are vital for India, infantry is irreplaceable for some missions, in particular, the ones taking place at high altitudes.

Any attack on the target by missiles will lead to casualties, deaths and destruction of property, which will be repaired in years. Ground troops, however, are capable of discrimination, isolation of danger and bringing peace through human judgment, which is not achievable through contemporary algorithms.

Population-centric sub-conventional wars require the presence of human soldiers. The infantry unit can switch to sub-conventional warfare and decentralised command when necessary. There is nothing special in the field formation that makes it incapable of fighting against the enemy in difficult and varied circumstances, as opposed to ships at seas and squadrons in air.

One more reason to select ground forces lies in the dual-use infrastructure built to prevent adversaries from using Indian roads to conduct aggressive manoeuvres. Nevertheless, times have changed and now dual-use roads are constructed so that land troops could penetrate disputed territories as soon as possible. Besides, land troops need to represent the spirit and will of the nation.

The Final Reckoning

Victory can be considered as captured territory. While contemporary wars start and might end with informational and air wars, their termination can be associated with territorial conquest. Losing and gaining territories significantly affects the national morale and legitimacy. Therefore, territorial changes remain the currency of victory, which means that the army protects the survival of the state.

Armies create faits accomplis. Pakistan lost 155 military personnel in Operation Sindoor due to Indian Army operations carried out along the Line of Control and International Border. National will of a state is determined by the man on the ground, which was demonstrated in 1971 by the formal surrender that took place among international witnesses.

Land invasion of a state represents the greatest threat to it. Only armies become the buffer between the intention of a hostile country and its capitulation. Reduced effectiveness of land troops will compel a state to face geography. The topography and threat landscape of India create several land-centric dilemmas for which there are no solutions outside this sphere.

Indian doctrine cannot succumb to the myth of the efficiency of stand-off warfare. Missiles, loitering munitions and drones represent important standoff capacities and deserve proactive investments.

Formation of integrated battle groups that include infantry, tanks, artillery, engineers and drones is an example of a multi-domain formation. Yet, one should focus on training, equipping and logistics of these formations. Experience of West Asia proves that while air and missile power can influence the operational environment, they fail to capture and conquer territory and force a resolute opponent to make political concessions.

Future Indian wars may begin and be won with informational and aerial warfare, yet they would terminate with land troops fighting on the ground. India needs to guarantee its ability to project, sustain and conduct land combat at any price. In conclusion, nothing can substitute for the soldier who holds a line.

Historic experience reveals that only through land wars can victory be ensured. For India, the task is to recognise this lesson and ensure that land forces remain a key instrument for conducting wars prescribed by geography.

Only land forces are capable of enforcing the will of India on its opponent, which means that the army reflects the power of the state.

ALSO READ: Mid-Air Scare on Air India Flight During Delhi Landing, Probe On