End of military dominance?

KIRAN KARNIK

A prediction of the demise of military hegemony may seem premature, if not completely wrong, at a time when the headlines are all about how the US (and Israel) is battering Iran, threatening to bomb it “back to the stone age”: President Trump’s echo of Bush’s words on Afghanistan. Yet, recent events provide enough evidence to make out a credible case for such a possibility as we look ahead.

What happens in Iran over the next few days — when this reaches your eyes — is uncertain. Yet, as this is being written, well over a month since the unprovoked US-Israel attack on Iran, the war has clearly not been won. While Iran’s military capabilities have been deeply degraded and much of its nuclear facilities destroyed, it is far from being completely cowed down, strongly negating all demands for unconditional surrender. In fact, it has enough firepower and gumption left to continue targeting Israel as also US bases in and around the Gulf. Thirty-plus days into a devastating war, it is yet able to shoot down US planes and helicopters. The military might of the superpower is visible in the destruction it has wrought, but yet is incapable of forcing a surrender, or even stopping powerful retaliation.

In Ukraine, another (former?) superpower has been bogged down in a war of attrition for over three years. After an initial thrust, Russia has hardly been able to capture more territory and is, in fact, even now losing hundreds of soldiers. While its drones and missiles can hit practically any target in Ukraine, its own territory too is under attack, sometimes deep inside the country. Many, including Russia’s leadership, thought that its troops would be in Kyiv within days of the invasion. Also, they expected that the Ukrainian president would be overthrown and the Russian army welcomed as saviours. Instead, he has become more popular than ever, and his grip on the country is stronger. The US made the same miscalculation about the regime in Iran. The murder of that country’s top leadership and the war were expected to trigger an uprising within the country; instead, the regime now seems more entrenched.

Recent history shows that this is not an altogether new trend. The US has had to retreat — with its tail between its legs — from Vietnam in 1973 and, more recently, from Afghanistan in 2021. Between these, its invasion of Iraq and regime change in Libya are hardly seen as successful. While the US has tasted some success in Venezuela after its kidnapping and abduction of that country’s president, it may be too early to declare victory. After all, it has not — after decades of threats, coercion, and sanctions — been able to force a regime change in next-door Cuba. Of course, the US has been cautious after its disastrous attempted invasion of the island — through Cuban exiles armed and financed by it — in 1961 in the Bay of Pigs.

The then-Soviet Union faced similar ignominy in Afghanistan, with the mighty superpower having to retreat in 1988. Though, before its superpower days, China too was rebuffed by Vietnam in their border war in 1979, withdrawing its invading troops in a month.    

In the past, the superpowers of the day generally had their way. In 1884-85, under the Treaty of Berlin, the European colonial powers divided Africa amongst themselves. For about two centuries, the European superpowers held sway over their colonies across the world, till nationalism took root and forced them to depart. Yalta, in 1945, marked another milestone. The victorious allies of World War II — the Soviet Union, US, and UK — arrogated to themselves the right to decide who amongst them would be “given” which countries, earmarking “spheres of influence”. Despite the Cold War, this arrangement broadly sustained till the 1980s, when the decline of one superpower (the Soviet Union) increasingly led to global dominance by the other, the US (by then, the UK was no longer in the same category). The rapid rise of China and economic problems in the US have changed the scenario over the past 15 years.

As we shift our perspective from the rearview mirror to looking ahead, a major factor curbing the dominance of any superpower is not only the rise of an alternative one but the growth of technologies which enable new forms of asymmetric warfare. These, particularly cyber and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), have enabled lesser powers and non-state players to inflict deterrent damage on much more powerful nations. UAVs, in the form of drones, are game changers, being easy to produce (or procure and modify, if necessary, to carry bombs or explosives), portable, requiring minimal launch infrastructure, difficult to detect, and inexpensive. They can be used individually or in so-called swarms that are capable of so overloading detection, tracking and defensive measures that counteraction is never fully effective. With even minimal armament, they can cause immense damage to carefully chosen targets like fuel storage, refineries, or power plants, and psychological impact through attacks on banks, hotels, government offices, or high-footfall locations like malls and stadia. The cost of countermeasures like interdiction are many times the cost of drones, leading to a huge asymmetric advantage.

Ukraine and Iran have used UAVs — drones and missiles — with great effectiveness to counter far superior military strength. Groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis too have similarly countered Israel with considerable effectiveness. We are yet to see cyber playing a similar role, but it can potentially be equally devastating in its impact. Further, it is more difficult to trace or attribute, can be done at even lower cost, and can be initiated by small groups (possibly even an individual).

Prepare, then, for the age of asymmetric warfare: of low-cost, high-tech, easily accessible, effective weapons. The bad news is that motivated groups can use them — with a little financing and support — to cause much harm. The good news (for most countries) is that this may end the days of bullying by big powers. 

Kiran Karnik is a public policy analyst, author, and columnist. His most recent book is ‘Decisive Decade: India 2030, Gazelle or Hippo’.