IS DISSECTING SHORT DECISIVE WARS IN PUBLIC WISE?

 WHY WAR LESSONS MUST STAY CLASSIFIED

Air Marshal R Nambiar PVSM AVSM VM & BAR VSM

Admiral Arun Prakash’s recent article, “After Operation Sindoor, Don’t Delay the Stocktaking,” has sparked widespread interest and lively debate. A decorated war hero and recipient of the Vir Chakra for gallantry during the 1971 Indo-Pak War, Admiral Prakash commands respect across military and civilian circles alike. His dual-service career in both the Indian Navy and Air Force lends weight to his strategic insights. However, his critique of the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) performance in the ongoing Operation Sindoor raises a fundamental concern: should lessons from an active military operation be publicly dissected?

While his observations stem from distinguished service and strategic depth, the public dissemination of such analysis—particularly mid-conflict—carries serious risks. As an IAF veteran, I find this deeply unsettling. Revealing operational insights, even with the best intentions, can inadvertently benefit adversaries. Worse still, it risks undermining the morale and operational freedom of our serving forces at a critical juncture.

The Danger of Public Debriefs

Admiral Prakash’s article essentially performs a debrief in public—an approach more suited to secure military settings than open forums. In classified environments, post-operation reviews are indispensable tools. They help commanders refine tactics and strategy through rigorous internal scrutiny. But when operational critiques are published in the public domain, they become treasure troves of information for hostile intelligence.

Modern warfare is not confined to battlefields; it plays out in psychological, informational, and cyber domains. Every detail—sortie rates, weapon choices, target patterns, or even apparent gaps—can be exploited to construct a revealing picture of our operational thinking. In an active campaign like Operation Sindoor, such disclosures risk shifting the psychological advantage to the enemy.

Seemingly minor details, when collated by hostile analysts, can become key intelligence. Past operations like Kargil (1999) and Balakot (2019) underscore the value of disciplined silence. Their success was rooted not just in combat prowess but in operational secrecy that kept adversaries guessing. The same ethos must govern Operation Sindoor.

Moreover, fixating on losses—whether aircraft, tanks, or personnel—harkens back to outdated metrics such as “body counts” or kill ratios, often irrelevant in modern strategic contexts. Victory today is measured in capability degradation, strategic leverage, and deterrence—not simply in numerical attrition.

Secrecy as Strategy

Operational security is not an impediment to transparency—it is a strategic imperative. Kargil and Balakot demonstrated the importance of need-to-know compartmentalisation. In both cases, critical lessons were internalised and applied effectively without media fanfare. The IAF’s ability to maintain the element of surprise was crucial to operational success.

Operation Sindoor demands similar restraint. The IAF has not officially acknowledged any losses—standard protocol during ongoing missions. Once operations conclude, the force has consistently shown transparency in reviewing and reporting lessons learned. Premature speculation or disclosure, however well-intentioned, serves no strategic purpose and risks giving adversaries a cognitive edge.

Instead of dissecting our own performance mid-conflict, public attention should focus on the gains: the rapid degradation of the adversary’s air force and military infrastructure within the first 90 hours of Operation Sindoor. That outcome, rather than our own attrition, should define public perception.

The “Need-to-Know” Principle: Military Security’s Bedrock

The IAF follows time-tested systems of internal review through secure briefings, war colleges, and classified reports. These forums transform operational experience into doctrinal evolution—away from prying eyes. The “need-to-know” principle is not designed to suppress discourse but to channel it constructively and securely.

Veterans like Admiral Prakash hold deep reservoirs of experience. Their wisdom is invaluable—within appropriate forums. Behind closed doors, they mentor the next generation and enrich our strategic institutions. But open analysis of current operations can inadvertently expose tactical or technological gaps, and sometimes reflect an understanding outpaced by new domains of warfare, such as network-centric operations or AI-enabled targeting.

Veterans must also respect that accountability and authority reside with serving personnel and elected leadership. The baton has been passed. Our successors carry the operational burden and must be empowered to do so without being second-guessed in the public eye.

A Call for Discretion

This is not a dismissal of Admiral Prakash’s right to express his views. His service is legendary, and his intention undoubtedly patriotic. But discretion is vital during active operations. Lessons drawn in the crucible of conflict must be protected—not broadcast. The strategic value of such insights lies in their application, not in their publication.

The legacy of Kargil and Balakot is not only one of bravery in battle, but also of operational discretion. Let Operation Sindoor follow in that tradition. Let us trust in the processes that have long guided the IAF and the government to assess, absorb, and act—at the right time, and in the right way.

Veterans have served with honour. Now, let us honour those who serve today—by giving them the space, confidence, and security they need to carry forward our proud military tradition.