Oxford dictionary defines deterrence as “the prevention from action by fear of consequences”. The concept of nuclear deterrence then, is quite self explanatory. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction states that two nuclear armed states will never engage in nuclear war due to the belief that, even if they are successful in destroying their enemy, they will endure unbearable losses. The goal of a deterrent strategy is to convince the enemy that you have the capacity to inflict unbearable damage to their critical interests. Over the decades, as air power and aerial threats have become more potent, the principles of deterrence theory have begun to apply in the conventional domain. However, because conventional armaments do not have the destructive capacity of nuclear warheads, it becomes far more difficult to convince the enemy of the threat you pose.
This was the challenge facing Pakistan’s military in 2019 during the aftermath of the Pulwama attack and the subsequent Balakot strike. India’s blatant violation of Pakistani airspace was an overtly hostile act. More concerningly, it indicated that the Indian strategic leadership did not respect Pakistan’s capacity to deter such actions. This was the Pakistan Air Force’s main test going into Operation Swift Retort and one which it passed with flying colours. The shooting down of multiple aircraft and the capture of their pilot became a source of international embarrassment for India.
Robert McNamara once said, “You cannot fashion a credible deterrent out of an incredible action.” Unfortunately, this was proven true as, despite their previous humiliation at the hands of the PAF, India did not appreciate Pakistan’s deterrent threat and once again opted for confrontation over diplomacy in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack.
Strategic posturing can best be understood as a form of communication. It is the most lethal language in the world, with missiles exchanged instead of words, but it is a form of communication nonetheless. Both sides carefully measure each and every statement and action to ensure that the intent behind them is conveyed properly. This is the medium through which one’s deterrent threat is communicated to the enemy. So, in order to understand the extent of the tactical victory Pakistan achieved during the events of 8-10th May, let us go step by step and analyze each side’s actions while keeping in mind each side’s intent.
In their rush to escalate tensions in order to appease their outraged public, India launched a brazen and poorly planned attack against Pakistan during the early hours of 7th May. Already, contradictions emerge as the stated goal of Operation Sindoor was to target terrorist camps, however the operation involved 72 aircraft, far more than required for ground strikes. It could be speculated that the IAF was hoping for an aerial engagement wherein it could avenge the losses it suffered in 2019. Unfortunately for them, this operation was also fated to end in disaster as they suffered the losses of six aircraft, including three Rafale fighter jets, the pride of the Indian Air Force. One can only imagine the psychological impact this had on the IAF’s strategic leadership. Following its defense of its sovereign territory, Pakistani leaders vowed retaliation, however none followed. In strategic posturing, actions convey intent more effectively than statements. While big statements are always issued in order to appease the public, military organizations understand their own strategic priorities and act accordingly. It is clear at this point that Pakistan was signalling its de-escalatory intent.
On 8th May, India launched its disinformation campaign in full force and claimed that Pakistan had launched 300-400 drones across Western India. In response, it carried out drone attacks on Islamabad, Sialkot, and Lahore. Once again, Pakistan did not retaliate with a strike of its own but instead called for a diplomatic solution
On 9th May, Indian media began claiming that Pakistani missiles had been sighted in 36 locations in India. In response, Pakistan claimed that India had fired missiles on its own territory. Whether these claims are true or Pakistan was simply matching India’s disinformation campaign has yet to be proven definitively. What is clear, however, is that even after suffering unprovoked missile and drone strikes, Pakistan was still hoping for a diplomatic resolution. If one were to speculate on the reason for Pakistan’s restraint, it is possible that the military leadership understood that all of India’s actions so far had been superficial. Escalatory, aggressive, and reckless, yes, but superficial in the sense that they were geared more towards appeasing public sentiment and achieving domestic political goals than they were towards achieving actual strategic objectives that would harm Pakistan. Unfortunately, this would change the next day.
On 10th May, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs accused Pakistan of targeting Indian bases at Udhampur, Adampur, Amritsar, Pathankot, and Bhuj. These baseless allegations were designed to provide a casus belli for their next actions. By claiming that Pakistan had escalated the conflict by targeting military assets deep within Indian territory, they provided themselves with an excuse to respond in kind. In a significant escalation of the conflict, India targeted Pakistani military assets directly by carrying out strikes on air bases at Murid, Rawalpindi, Sargodha, and Rafique. By looking at the geographic layout of these strikes, we can clearly see India’s intent to deepen and broaden the field of battle.
In response to India’s strikes on its military installations, Pakistan launched Operation Bunyan-Um-Marsoos, a rapid and tightly coordinated operation designed to show Pakistan’s capability and willingness to escalate and inflict unbearable losses on India.
In order to understand the rationale behind Operation Bunyan-Um-Marsoos, we will first analyze each individual prong of the offensive, of which there are three. The first is the missile and drone strikes on IAF bases at Akhnoor, Udhampur, Pathankot, Adampur, Halwara, Bhatinda, Sirsa, and Suratgarh. The intent behind these attacks was to convey Pakistan’s capacity to strike and disable IAF assets, both aircraft and runways alike. The most consequential of these strikes was on Akhnoor, an aviation base which is host to military helicopters. The reason for this leads directly into the next prong of the attack, the ground offensive along the Line of Control wherein five Indian checkposts and one artillery gun post were destroyed along with the Brigade Headquarters in Uri and an Intel Training Center at Rajouri. By disabling, or at least softening up, Indian air fields simultaneous to attacking along the LoC, Pakistan achieved two goals; it signalled its willingness to escalate on the ground as well as the sky and it showed India that, should such a war break out, the PAF was more than capable of ensuring that Indian ground forces in Jammu and Kashmir would not be able to confidently rely on close air support. The third prong of the attack is the strikes on the Brahmos battery in Nagrota and storage sites in Beas as well as the S-400 ballistic missile defense system stationed in Adampur. The intent here is clear; to show that Pakistan is capable of targeting India’s most potent assets in the theater and it can utilize its superior targeting doctrine to minimize India’s numerical advantage in terms of armaments and manpower.
All together, these three prongs come together to form Operation Bunyan-Um-Marsoos, a jaw breaking response to India’s aggressive posturing and escalatory actions, and the first of its kind in Pakistan’s military history. Combined arms offensives of this nature, with this level of coordination, are immensely difficult to execute successfully. This operation was the culmination of decades of hard work in refining operational coordination between Pakistan’s Army and Air Force and the results speak for themselves. In a single stroke, Pakistan had signalled its willingness to match India’s escalations while also discouraging India from retaliating through a decisive show of force wherein both the potency of Pakistan’s military assets and the strategic doctrines which guide their use was on full display. By showcasing its ability to inflict unbearable damage on its adversary, Pakistan’s military once again firmly established its deterrent threat in the mind of the enemy. Talk is cheap and the Indian media continued their denial tactics but actions convey intent and their leadership understood the message which was delivered.
Be the first to comment