Conflicts in the recent past have taken a new and dynamic character where the erstwhile dictum of strategising land manoeuvres to achieve political objectives while causing minimum collateral damage has been eschewed to a level where the adversarial destruction, despite collateral damage, pulverising whatever comes in its wake with all the available means, seems to be the order of the day. Thus, warfare in its true sense is becoming an exposition of large-scale military violence perpetrated by an intense exchange of explosives that is destruction-specific rather than objective-specific. Israeli offensive into Gaza and the Ukraine-Russian conflict are stark examples that form the basis of this hypothesis. Viewed in this context, the contours of warfare for the foreseeable future will undoubtedly ween away from the traditional battlefield, where operational art was a key component to one that focuses on the destruction of the adversary using precision engagements of a wide spectrum of targets to include military, technical, political, economic, social and psychological targets including the cognitive domain of the adversary.
Political Narratives of Conflict
Having set the narrative, the two ongoing conflicts reflect two separate yet distinctive political imperatives of conflict. In the case of the Russian onslaught, military objectives were territory specific to gain control of the Russian-speaking areas of eastern Ukraine, while the Israeli offensive into Gaza is being directed specifically against Hamas a radical militant organisation as a retaliation to avenge humiliation caused by the devastating terrorist attack killing 1200 Israeli citizens and taking over 250 as hostages. Thus, the foreseeable end state in either case is vastly different in terms of its war objectives – the former being the capture of territory while the latter is the eradication of a terror group. In both cases, the means to achieve it has been by relentless destruction of urban hideouts, relying heavily on a host of technological wherewithal for precise identification followed by massive application of firepower culminating in consolidation of the gains by structured battle groups.
Hence, the precise character of future wars will largely depend on the political nature of conflict buttressed with a range of factors that relate to the type of adversaries, its technological threshold, geographical scope, and multiple domains of warfighting. Thus, it may be appropriate to suggest that warfare in its true sense has undergone a radical change, where the domains of warfare are a seamless merger of conventional and asymmetric, multiplied to include information, space, satellite, cyber and precision long-range delivery, all strapped with artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms layered over the stated domains of land, sea, air and space. In all this, deterrence by any means, including nuclear, continues to remain paramount.
Relevance of Manoeuvre Warfare
In so far as manoeuvre warfare is concerned mechanised elements have been extensively used in the twin conflict zones alluded to. However, the terrain is predominantly a densely populated urban landscape, as a result of rapid urbanisation, leaving very little manoeuvre space. Therefore, given the severe space restriction, the application of large-scale manoeuvre force is limited to axial ingress along predetermined road resulting in an envelopment movement rather than an envelopment manoeuvre or have been transformed into mobile pill boxes to raze the hideouts as part of the destruction process. Hence, it may appear that their role has been relegated to one that is just a show of force with no tangible exposition of its characteristics of speed and shock action. In fact, its vulnerability to drone attacks has severely crippled its classical destructive combat manoeuvres capability.
Warfare in its true sense is becoming an exposition of large-scale military violence perpetrated by an intense exchange of explosives that is destruction-specific rather than objective-specific. Israeli offensive into Gaza and the Ukraine-Russian conflict are stark examples. Viewed in this context, the contours of warfare for the foreseeable future will undoubtedly ween away from the traditional battlefield
Therefore, the main question is, will manoeuvre warfare maintain its status as the supreme method of land warfare, or will it fade into the background in favour of other, emerging methods of force employment? It may also be pertinent to recall that since the end of World War 2, except for the Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur War and the Indian conflicts with Pakistan, there has been no known historical evidence of a repeat of manoeuvre warfare in its classical sense. Today the use of armour in the Russian-Ukraine conflict as well as in Gaza is nothing but a penetrative movement through a barrage of menacing fire. The physical dominance continues to be with the boots on the ground.
Therefore, given these battlefield dynamics, the questions that need answers stem from the very root of dealing with conflicts in the future. To what extent is classic and contemporary military theory pertinent for interpreting and describing the realities of current and expected future combat? What method of command will be most suited to future tactics and operations? In particular, how is mission control, a key component of manoeuvre warfare, likely to evolve in the future? What should 21st-century combat logistics look like?
The answers to all these questions lie in the extent to which emerging technologies are transforming the very basis of warfare. Artificial Intelligence, machine learning, sensors, robotics, unmanned air and ground systems, and cyber capabilities have rendered the battlefield transparent, thereby increasing the tempo of operations across domains leading to a significant extension of the duration of conflict which is a function of the warfighting potential of the warring factions.
Sustenance of Military Capability
Developed countries around the globe rely on military capabilities to defend their sovereign state. Whereas, smaller developing states in Africa and the Middle East with a fractured mandate have given rise to sectarian violence based on ideological differences. These ideological differences have seen the proliferation of non-state actors who perpetrate proxy wars based on clandestine operations, crime, sabotage, subversion, and terrorism. So, any military intervention has to be on asymmetric lines or warfare by other means, which assumes centre stage. It necessitates close monitoring and developing strategies to deal with them in the conventional as well as sub-conventional domains while integrating a wide variety of complex strategies.
That apart, the proliferation of private military entities and the participation of private actors in conflicts should also be factored in, as their role and the size of operations have grown exponentially. The Wagner Group raised and employed by Russia against Ukraine is a classic example. These private actors have become an integral part of the state’s military operations. At the same time, they risk changing the way military operations take place and in the long run, may acquire their own military capabilities. Hence, it may be prudent to conclude that future warfare will necessarily have to adopt all the strategies that emerge along the continuum of conflict.
The precise character of future wars will largely depend on the political nature of conflict buttressed with a range of factors that relate to the type of adversaries, its technological threshold, geographical scope, and multiple domains of warfighting. Thus, it may be appropriate to suggest that warfare in its true sense has undergone a radical change
Evolution of Warfare on a Generative Continuum
A pragmatic approach to assessing the perceived nature of land warfare for the future would be to analyse the evolution of warfare on a generational basis. On the generative continuum, the first generation of warfare was defined as ‘mass warfare’ or ‘line and column warfare’ that peaked in 1914-1918 during the First World War. Second-generation warfare is defined in terms of ‘trench warfare’ or ‘linear fire’ that was positional in nature and corresponds to the industrial age which developed until the Second World War. Third-generation warfare is the genesis of ‘manoeuvre warfare’ that postulated the philosophy of blitzkrieg based on mechanised forces leading to the maturation of concepts during the Second World War.
After the Second World War, countries began developing large-scale nuclear capabilities as a perceived deterrence against conventional conflicts. This led to Fourth-generation warfare, which encompasses ‘insurgency warfare’, ‘asymmetric warfare’, or even ‘unconventional warfare’ in the era of the information age. The modus operandi shifted to the increasing use of low-intensity conflicts, insurgency and use of terrorist tactics aimed at defeating the very edifice of conventional military force to influence decision-makers to change their political viewpoint to their own advantage while destroying the fighting spirit and morale of their troops.
The next is the Fifth Generation Warfare which refers to ‘unrestricted warfare’ or ‘compound warfare’ or ‘irregular warfare’. Unrestricted warfare is a type of war in which one party uses all the available means in order to compel the opponent to its cause. Compound warfare on the other hand is the simultaneous use of conventional force and an irregular or guerrilla force against an enemy. In other words, the military leverage is increased by applying both conventional and unconventional force at the same time. Irregular warfare, as the name suggests, is a violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence. This type of war favours indirect and asymmetric approaches, though it may employ the full range of military and other capabilities, in order to erode an adversary’s power and influence. It is a war against non-state actors, where the mass and the tangible ‘centre of gravity’ vanishes and relies on the use of both conventional and unconventional military tactics and weapons in furtherance of its political, religious and social causes.
Sixth-generation warfare is about non-contact warfare through the usage of high-accuracy long-range gunnery and information warfare. It aims to perform operations in air, land, sea and space platforms with the usage of long-range and high-precision weapons to neutralise the war-waging capability of the adversary. That apart, it also focuses on destroying the adversaries’ economy so as to force a regime change or the enemy’s political system. Sixth-generation warfare refers to attacks within the psychological and informational domain of the adversary through coordinated strikes and attacks at the most favourable time within the opponent’s territory.
Seventh-generation warfare is a natural evolution from the sixth-generation warfare as a contactless war. It is a warfare that uses electronic and cyber warfare and weapons to shut down the opponent’s cyber network, financial and military communication networks, power grid and water utilities. In other words, it is aimed at collapsing all the infrastructure that supports natural governance including its military hardware. The next step after shutting down the enemy system is to control their battle space through the usage of swarms of the weapons platforms aimed at incapacitating the adversary without the use of force.
Tenth Generation Warfare is the so-called ‘war of minds’. It focuses mainly on direct control over the adversary’s mind, where information stored in the brain is transformed into a self-destructing weapon, by targeting the individual’s mental information without him/her realising and driving him/her to commit destructive actions, including self-destruction or suicide
Other Generations of War
Eighth Generation Warfare (Silent War): Thinkers believe that it uses (Chemtrail), the latest weapons of mass destruction, for getting chemical reactions and making natural disasters like storms, hurricanes, earthquakes, lightning, thunder, desertification and drought to cause destructive damages in the targeted places. It uses the Global Navigation System and digital technology to penetrate information systems. It can scan the map of human brain magnetic activities, and target individuals and peoples based on the packages used.
The latest in the series is the 9th Generation Warfare: Ninth-generation warfare envisions artificial intelligence-based robots that can take over the role of humans. Robots can invade a country or can be used in guerilla warfare designed to obviate the use of regular troops. It entails sending robots with an anonymous identity to cause the desired destruction clandestinely. Their employment may not necessarily be restricted to the battlefield but can be used to invade critical infrastructure. Following closely is the evolution of the 10th Generation which is the most complex form of warfare or the so-called ‘war of minds’. It focuses mainly on direct control over the adversary’s mind, where information stored in the brain is transformed into a self-destructing weapon, by targeting the individual’s mental information without him/her realising and driving him/her to commit actions that are detrimental to natural governance and the standard military operation, including self-destruction or suicide, so that it will cause the necessary damage to the targeted country and its peoples.
Thus, the future war will be fragmented and dispersed, fought by a wide range of fighters, ranging from armed groups to regular forces, as well as an assortment of allies, supporters, friendly forces, non-supporters, neutrals, inactive hostiles, robots and unknowns, in addition to the clear enemy. It will rely heavily on information warfare focusing on the cyber domain and non-contact battle or grey zone battle marked by a complex blend of conventional military operations, cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns, economic pressure, and political manipulation, all used simultaneously to achieve strategic goals without necessarily declaring open war. It is no exaggeration that the future of land warfare, and the demands placed on land forces, will become ever more daunting as we approach the mid-21st century.
–The writer is a former GOC of the Indian Army and presently serves as a Strategic Consultant and Principal Advisor. The views expressed are of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of Raksha Anirveda
