4th Lecture

War: Causation of War, Total War, limited War,

Asymmetric War, Civil War, Guerrilla War.

Strategic Culture: Determinants of Strategic Culture

of Pakistan .

Deterrence: Theory and Practice with Special

reference Nuclear India and Pakistan.
War

“War is a belligerent struggle between armed

groups within a state or between states”

Why wars break out?

Causes of War
 Kenneth Waltz finds three level of analysis to explain the causes of
War.
1 The Individual: Realist and Liberal interpretation
 Some (leaders) are aggressive and bellicose (realist)
 It is not the innate nature of individual … but misinterpretation
(miscalculation of hostility of adversary) (WWI)
 According to liberals – seeing aggression where it is not intended
 Realists…St. Augustine very act of self-preservation
 Reinhold Niebuhr … cause of war lies in human psyche (animal
behaviour say socio-biologists)
 2 State and Society
 War occurs because of the internal structure of the state, size, geography,
ethnic homogeneity, economic and political preferences.
Which state structures are more inclined towards the war?
 Plato believes, “war is less likely where population is cohesive and
moderately prosperous”.
 Kant believed, “War was more likely in aristocratic states”.
 Liberals argue that some economic systems are war prone .. liberal systems
are more capitalists in nature where members enjoy relative wealth. Such
societies feel no need to divert the attention of the dissatisfied masses to
external conflict.
 The wealthy masses are largely satisfied with the status quo.
 Contrary to this belief, many argue that capitalist model of production
inevitably leads to conflict between the two major classes “Proletariat” and
“Bourgeoisie” for both economic dominance and political leadership.
 3 International System: Realist Interpretation
Anarchic Int. System
Hobbesian ‘state of nature’ war of all against all
(Jungle)
Security dilemma and feeling of insecurity
War breaks out as the continuation of logical
course say realists…mistrust etc.
Territory was major contested claim (Palestine,
Kashmir, France Germany, Ecuador and Peru)
 Inequalities of capabilities among states are cause of war. (PAK-
India)
 The change in the capabilities of the states leads to war. (US in
decline – China on the rise)
 When a dissatisfied challenger begins to attain the same level of
capabilities as hegemon, the challenger will launch a war to solidify
its position.
BUT…Think

Who will decide Chechen Bosnian claims of independence to be

legitimate?
Who decide whether Kurdish claim against Turkey and Iraq are worthy
of consideration? (No Morality exists)
Why did Iraq invade Kuwait in 1990-91?
Causes of Iraq Invasion of Kuwait

Iraq Just acted in its own national interest

Historic claims of territory
Saddam’ personality and his advisors (non-
democratic)
Miscalculation of Saudi response in permitting US
forces on Saudi soil.
Categories of War
General War

 Armed conflict involving massive loss of men and material.

 Usually many participants including major powers
General War is fought for many reasons
 To conquer or occupy territory
 To take over government
 To control the economic resources of the opponent
 Conflict of ideas (Hindu-Muslim, Shia-Sunni, catholic-
protestant, communism-democracy, democracy –
authoritarianism)
 Thirty years war 1618-1648 was the longest general war
involving Austria, France, Britain, Spain, Netherland,
Sweden and over 2 million battle field deaths.
 Spanish War (1701-1714),Napoleonic Wars in 18th
century, WWI and WWII
Civil Wars
 Wars between the factions within a state over control of territory,
establishment of govt., for control of a “failed state”, (Afghanistan,
Somalia, Liberia, now Iraq and Syria).
 Ethno-nationalistic movements seeking greater autonomy or
succession (Chechen in Russia, Tamils in Sri Lank, Tamils in India, IHK
vs India).
 Wars between ethnic, clan, or religious groups for control of state
(Colombia, Peru, Algeria, Rwanda).
 American civil wars (1861-65)
 Russian civil wars (1917-1922)
 Various state actors, sub-state actors, and transnational actors
possess enhanced war making potentials. (money , Manpower)
 With the ability to purchase weapons from the global black market.
 Some civil wars are confined to local in scope.
 Some wars are international with refugee influx exceeding cross the
border (Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, palestine)
 Outside forces involve by supporting groups and providing weapons
and Finances.
Limited Wars
 Where the objective is not surrender and occupation of
enemy territory.
 Korean War 1950-53, Gulf War 1990-1991(US
involvement)
 In LW not all available armaments are unleashed, mostly
conventional (tanks, foot soldiers, aircrafts, missiles etc.)
 Best example is Arab – Israel War, (Israel vs Egypt, Syria,
Jordon, and Lebanon as well as Palestinians in West
Bank and Ghaza)
 Sometimes this war has blown ‘hot’ and ‘cold’.
Asymmetric Warfare

 “Asymmetric warfare, by contrast, is warfare conducted

between parties of unequal strength”.
 “Unconventional strategies and tactics adopted by a
force when the military capabilities of belligerent powers
are not simply unequal but are so significantly different
that they cannot make the same sorts of attacks on
each other”.
 Victory in war does not always go to the militarily
superior force. (Vietnam, Afghanistan)
 The weaker party seeks to neutralize its opponent’s
strength, including its technological superiority, by
exploiting the opponent’s weakness. (geography etc)
 Guerrilla warfare
 Is one strategy of asymmetrical warfare, where a weaker party may
often utilize a willing (or unwilling) civilian population to supply like
food and shelter and to gather intelligence where they have no
such capability. (Kashmir)
 Hit-and-run tactic – inflicting causalities again and again
 Weaker side Avoid direct confrontation and exhaust other
Examples (Algerians vs France, Kashmiris vs Indians, Tamils vs SL
forces, Mujahedeen vs Soviets, Mao Zedong VS Nationalist government
in 1930s – 1940s, Vietnamese vs US, and Iraqis vs US).
 Counter Guerrilla/Counter insurgency
 Search and destroy
 Keep them on the run by depriving them sanctuaries
 Carpet bombing
 US in Vietnam in 1960s and 1970s
 This concept is Borrowed from Britain in Malaysia (1960s)
and Kenya (1950s)
Total war
 Military conflict in which the contenders are willing to make any
sacrifice in lives and other resources to obtain a complete victory.
(Q) Why limited wars not total wars?
(Q) Why Total wars not limited wars?
(A) because its about social and economics not the political

 The modern concept of total war can be traced to the writings of

the 19th-century Prussian/German military strategist Carl Von
Clausewitz, who denied that wars could be fought by laws. (On
War)
 He rejected the limited objectives
 WWI and WWII best examples of Total Wars.
Strategic Culture: Determinants of
Strategic Culture of Pakistan
 Defining Strategic Culture

 Jack Snyder describes strategic culture as “the sum total of ideals,

conditional emotional responses, and patterns of behaviour that members
of the national strategic community have acquired through instruction or
imitation and share with each other.

 Stephen Rosen’s approach is very similar, observing that strategic culture is

made up of the shared “beliefs and assumptions that frame … choices
about international military behaviour, particularly those concerning
decisions to go to war, preferences for offensive, expansionist or defensive
modes of warfare, and levels of wartime casualties that would be
acceptable.
 Ian Johnston portrays strategic culture as “an ideational situation
which limits behavioural choices”. This situation is shaped by
“shared assumptions decisions rules that impose a degree of order
on individual and group conceptions of their relationship to their
social, organizational or political environment”.
 While most agree that strategic culture has something to do with
the “shared belief and assumptions” of a nation, or at least of a
national security elite.

--- “Shared beliefs and assumptions” ---

 A nation’s history, attitude, and conduct also play major role in

shaping strategic culture of a nation.
Precise and Practical Definition
 “Strategic culture is a collectivity of the beliefs, norms,
values, and historical experiences of the dominant elite
in a polity that influences their understanding and
interpretation of security issues and environment, and
shapes their responses to these.” (Rizvi)

 It is a perceptual framework of values, and beliefs that

serves as a screen through which the policymakers view
the dynamics of the external security environment,
interpret the available in formation and decide about
the policy options in a given situation.
 The historical narratives created by the dominant elite,
their notions of war and peace, the dynamics of power
politics in a polity and the decision making patterns
have a profound impact on the defense and security-
related character of a state.

 It (SC) offers a better understanding of a state’s military

and security strategies.
 The underlying assumption is that the political-military
policymakers do not always respond to reality.
 Their security thinking is shaped by their image of the
situation.
 Their behaviour is determined by what they think the
world is like, not what it is really like.
 Historical narratives (concepts), perceptions of the
adversary’s intentions and capabilities, are useful to
understand the strategic disposition of a state and the
choices the security managers make.
Pakistan’s Strategic Culture

 Pakistan is one of the least secure countries on the planet.

 As a reflection of its obsession with security, Pakistan spends
heavily on defense.
 More tellingly, it ranks 19th? in the world in terms of military
expenditure as a percent of GDP (at just 5 percent).
 Indicators of military capability show that Pakistan has one of
the world's largest and best equipped armed forces with
growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.
 But statistics hardly do justice to the country's intense feelings
of insecurity, which are rooted deeply in the past.
Pakistan’s roots of insecurity
The enmity between Pakistan and India goes
dates back to August 1947 partition.
Four million Hindus and Sikhs migrated to India
Six million Muslims migrated to Pakistan
Over one million migrants were slaughtered.
The bitter memories are still alive in the minds of
the Muslims.
 Pakistanis fear that India rejects the “two-nation theory” that
was the logic behind partition.
 India’s active support for the creation of Bangladesh
reinforced Pakistan’s view that new Delhi aspire to re-unify
the Indian empire under its control, or at least reduce
Pakistan to a position of weakness like Bhutan Maldives etc.
 Kashmir dispute
 Afghanistan’s Durand Line Issue
 Pashtoonistan problem
 Afghanistan does not pose a direct threat to Pakistan but
former can collude with India.
Key Determinants of Pakistan's Strategic
Culture
(1) Opposition to Indian Hegemony or Insecurity and a
Hostile India
 In Oct 1944 and Nov 1946, QA MA Jinnah said that India and
Pakistan would proclaim a Monroe Doctrine of their own for the
defense of the subcontinent against all outsiders.
“We join together as good friends and neighbours and say to the
world, Hands off India”.
 Three major developments changed the perspective of Pakistani
leaders towards India and caused serious security problems for
them.
 First, the communal riots that accompanied the partition of India
and the massive influx of refugees shocked them.
 Second, the disputes over the distribution of civil and military assets.
 Third, the dispute on the accession of the princely states of
Junagadh and especially Jammu and Kashmir caused much
bitterness.
 Pakistan’s civilian and military leaders are apprehensive about
India’s efforts to assume a leadership and commanding role in
South Asia.
 This is a long-cherished and often unstated goal whose roots go
back to the days of Nehru.
 Indian leaders emphasized India’s commanding role in a more
forceful manner after Pakistan’s military debacle in the 1971 Indo-
Pakistani war.
(2) Afghanistan’s irredentist claims
 Afghanistan’s irredentist claims on Pakistan’s territory intensified the
latter’s insecurity.
 In 1947 it laid claims on NWFP and parts of Balochistan.
 On the pretext of this territorial claim, Afghanistan opposed
Pakistan’s admission to the (UN) in September 1947.
 Intermittent border clashes between the two countries in the 1950s
and the 1960s caused much concern to Pakistan, and their
diplomatic relations were severed twice, in 1955 and 1962.
 Afghanistan was a weaker military power, but what perturbed
Pakistan most was India’s support of Afghanistan’s claims on
Pakistani territory. In 1955, the Soviet Union endorsed Afghanistan’s
demands on Pakistan.
 Two front war was perceived by the security managers of Pakistan.
(3) Role of religion (Islam) and Strategic
Culture of Pakistan.
 Islam is integral to Pakistan’s strategic culture because it contributes
to shaping societal dispositions and the orientations of the
policymakers.
 Islam is closely associated with the establishment of the state and
the constitution designates the state as an “Islamic Republic”.
 With an emphasis on the Islamic character of Pakistani identity and
a stipulation that no law can be enacted that violates the basic
principles and teachings of Islam.
 All political parties recognize the centrality of Islam.
 Education sector at all levels covers Islamic studies.
 The historical narratives highlight the advent of Islam in India, glorify
Muslim rule there, and define Pakistani identity with reference to
Islam and the Muslim rule.
 Islamic orientations and values are so deeply rooted in the
society.
 The Islamic notions Shaheed (martyr), ghazi (victorious), and
Jihad-e-fi-Sibilallah (holy war in the name of God) are
emphasized as the major sources of inspiration for the
Pakistani military in war and peace.
Islamic Fundamentalism increased for two reasons
 Over emphasis of Zia ul Haq who faced crisis of legitimacy
and wanted to supress democratic movements.
 Afghan war against godless communists, ISI + US had to work
with clerics and madrassah students.
Quest for Security and policy guidelines

 The search for security emerged as the cardinal concern

of Pakistan’s policymakers that not only shaped their
worldview and disposition towards regional and
international politics but also served as an instrument of
four policy options;
 Opposition to India’s regional dominance agenda,
 Augmentation of security by assigning the highest
priority to defense needs.
 Weapons development and procurements from abroad
 Reliance on diplomacy, including military alignment, to
overcome its military weakness vis-à-vis militarily powerful
India.
1 Nuclear Deterrence

 Pakistan has waged a determined campaign to acquire

and modernise an operational deterrent ever since
1971.
 Despite Pakistan’s detonation of nuclear weapon
device in May 1998 and numerous test flights of various
missile delivery systems, the expansion, diversification,
and security of its deterrent remain key priorities,
especially as Indian military might continue to grow.
 Pakistan’s deterrence posture is built on a strong
conventional force/nuclear capability and
demonstration of its willingness to run high risks and pay
high costs to deter aggression
2 Foreign financial Aid

To compensate
 Indian manpower
 Size
 International position
 Strong economy economic growth
 Large Market etc.
Stability on Pakistan’s Western Borders

 Contain Taliban or any other group with religious militant

tendencies
 To check the Influx of Refugees, Drug traffickers, and
criminal elements.
 Having strong relations with friendly Afghan govt.
Identification with Conservative Islamic
Causes

 The emphasis on Muslim nationalism that brought

Pakistan into being continues to play an important role
in shaping its national identity and foreign relations.
 In the years following independence, Muslim nationalism
became more than a nationalist ideology.
 It became a rallying cry for Islamic solidarity and Muslim
causes all over the World.
 Thus while Islam remains a major part of Pakistan’s
political identity, it generally is not a dominant theme in
Pakistan’s foreign and defence policies.
Conclusion:
 An acute insecurity developed in the early years of
independence due to troubled relations with India and
problems with Afghanistan.
 A strong distrust of India and a history of acrimonious Indo-
Pakistani relations reinforced by the historical narratives of the
pre independence period and the troubled bilateral
interaction in the post-independence period.
 Aversion to an India-dominated regional power arrangement
for South Asia.
 An active search for security to maintain its independence in
deciding about foreign policy options and domestic policies.
 A close nexus between Islam and strategic thinking, leading
to connections between Religious militancy and foreign
policy.
Deterrence: Theory and Practice with
Special reference Nuclear India and
Pakistan
“Deterrence is based on the notion that people
consciously try to avoid pain and seek pleasure”.
Defining Deterrence

 “Deterrence is an attempt by one government to prevent an

adversary from undertaking a course of action (usually an attack on
itself or its allies) that the government regards as undesirable, by
threatening to inflict unacceptable costs upon the adversary in the
event that the action is taken.” Phil Williams
 The term deterrence with French roots means “to frighten from”.
 Simply “dissuasion by means of threat”.
 Roman Proverb, Si vis Pacem, para bellum: If One wants peace
prepare for war.
 The concept is as old as the human civilization itself, but the most
developed form of the deterrence coincides with the advent of
Nuclear era in IR.
 Alexander George, “ An effort by an actor to persuade
an opponent not to take action of some kind against his
interests by the convincing the opponent that the costs
and risks of doing so will outweigh what he hopes to gain
thereby”.
 In its emphasis on threat deterrence is often distinguished
from more general forms of persuasion, including those
based on the offer of reward.
 It is threat of punishment which is the defining
characteristic of deterrence.
Deterrence in nuclear era
 In the context of the nuclear age, the idea was first articulated by Bernard
Brodie in 1946 in his famous statement:
 “The chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars, from
now on its purpose would be to avert them”.
 Riffat Hussain points out: “Nuclear weapons appear to have had three
general effects on inter-State relations.
 First, nuclear weapons provide the nuclear State with an “infrangible
guarantee of its independence and physical integrity”.
 Second, mutual deterrence among antagonistic nuclear States places
limits on violence and in turn acts as a brake on total war.
 Third, by altering the „offence-defence‟ balance in favour of defence,
nuclear weapons have made it possible for weaker States to defend
themselves effectively against larger power countries.
 Deterrence Effect
Deterrence Effect = Estimated Capability x Estimated Intent

What Does Deterrence mean?

 To deter means to dissuade
 It is a strategy of prevention
Components of Deterrence

1 Capability
2 The intention to employ it
3 The ability to communicate both capability
and resolve.
Steps in Deterrence

 Weigh interests at the stake

 Convey commitment to defend those interests

 Back commitments by threats to respond if the opponent

acts.

 Make such threats appear credible and sufficient in the eyes

of the opponent.
How is it different from defence?
 Defence is the ability to defend oneself against an act of aggression

 Deterrence is the ability to persuade the adversary from committing

an act of aggression.

 Defence follows the failure of deterrence

 Deterrence is based on the threat of retaliation with force to inflict

unacceptable damage.
Assumptions of Deterrence Theory

 Decisions by both the defender and the challenger will be

based on rational calculations of probable costs and gains,
accurate evaluation of the situation and careful assessment
of relative capabilities.
 A high level of threat such as Nuclear weapons inhibit rather
provoke aggressive behaviour.
 Both defender and offender are similar and each places its
security at the top.
 Both have strong communication with accurate interpretation
of the situation.
 Both Sides maintain tight or centralized decision making that
might involve or provoke the use of strategic weapons.
In Indo Pak Case (Nuclear Deterrence)
 India and Pakistan jealously protect their strategic autonomy and
nuclear weapons capability.

 They rejected UN Resolution 1172 which urges India and Pakistan, in

conjunction with other States that have not yet done so, to become
party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty without delay and without
conditions.

 India and Pakistan do share the long-standing and highly

developed theory of deterrence that emerged from the Cold War.
 Nevertheless, the cost-benefit calculus that underpins deterrence
may be clouded by the introduction of a new kind of weapon —
missile defence systems.

 Varying perceptions and strategic cultures/mindsets of security

elites in New Delhi and Islamabad.

 The missile defence systems, for example, in India’s arsenal may

lead it to adjust deterrence with compellence in its nuclear
strategy.
Key Assumptions of Nuclear Deterrence

 Rationality

 Cost/Benefit Calculus

 MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), Mutual Vulnerability

 Perceptions are the key

 Credibility is fundamental for effective functioning of deterrence.

Conclusion:
 Indian and Pakistani nuclearization has not deterred sub-
conventional warfare or limited conventional war (1999 Kargil),
eyeball-to-eyeball military deployments in 2001-2002 and the
possibility of Indian surgical strikes inside Pakistan in the aftermath of
the Mumbai terrorist attacks. (Z.N. Jaspal)

 The positive factor for deterrence optimists is that India and Pakistan
had agreed to some confidence-building and nuclear risk-
reduction measures, such as non-attack on each other’s nuclear
installations and notifications regarding certain missile flight tests
and military exercises.
Questions for Probing
 Role of Non-state actors in shaping strategic culture of
Pakistan or Indo Pak?

 Has Nuclear deterrence been able to ensure strategic

stability between India and Pakistan ?

 Can Pakistan replicate its Swat operation (COIN) in

North Waziristan and Analyse the success of Zarb-Azab
keeping in view the Swat success.