July 10, 2025 • 34 mins
India's Operation Sindoor decoded by top US war strategist Colonel John Spencer.
Colonel Spencer — Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, combat veteran, and author — joins the India Today Chakravyuh Podcast for an explosive conversation on India's bold new military doctrine post-Operation Sindoor.
In this candid and unfiltered interview with host Gaurav Sawant, Spencer shares insights from his on-ground visit to India, the symbolism behind the strikes, and why this operation marks a strategic shift in global counter-terrorism. The conversation also holds:
✅ Operation Sindoor’s strategic brilliance
✅ Why 11 air bases and radar systems were hit
✅ India's new doctrine of preemption
✅ Drones, Akash missiles, and indigenous tech
✅ Pakistan’s failure in strategic communication
✅ What makes Sindoor a textbook case for military schools worldwide
“You don’t negotiate with terrorists under nuclear threat. You respond. And India responded.”
Don’t miss this in-depth breakdown from a global military thinker who has seen wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and now, India’s red line moment.
Produced by Garvit Srivastava
Sound mixed by Rohan Bharti
Colonel Spencer — Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, combat veteran, and author — joins the India Today Chakravyuh Podcast for an explosive conversation on India's bold new military doctrine post-Operation Sindoor.
In this candid and unfiltered interview with host Gaurav Sawant, Spencer shares insights from his on-ground visit to India, the symbolism behind the strikes, and why this operation marks a strategic shift in global counter-terrorism. The conversation also holds:
✅ Operation Sindoor’s strategic brilliance
✅ Why 11 air bases and radar systems were hit
✅ India's new doctrine of preemption
✅ Drones, Akash missiles, and indigenous tech
✅ Pakistan’s failure in strategic communication
✅ What makes Sindoor a textbook case for military schools worldwide
“You don’t negotiate with terrorists under nuclear threat. You respond. And India responded.”
Don’t miss this in-depth breakdown from a global military thinker who has seen wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and now, India’s red line moment.
Produced by Garvit Srivastava
Sound mixed by Rohan Bharti
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is India Today podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Hello and welcome to an India Today special broadcast. We
are on the Chuck Review podcast and my guest today
is very special. He is a combat veteran and academic
and author, the chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West
Point and the difference between other academics and him. He
(00:29):
travels to the battle zone on ground and then forms
a picture and an opinion. Welcome Colonel Spencer for being
a part of the India Today Chuck Review podcast.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
It's great to meet you in person and your coverage
has been amazing.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Thank you very much. Your assessment of operations Sindur. You've
been studying operations Sindur. We've spoken about it, but you
you flew down to India to be able to assess
operations Sindur.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
What have you found out.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Something every day? I mean, I've learned that one thing
I've learned in my studies that you have to get
on the ground. You have to talk to military leaders,
political leaders, even media to know what was happening. Then
what were the lessons learned or not learned from the operation?
As I make an objective assessment of the operation, which
I think is should be recorded in history and taught
(01:22):
in warrior colleges around the world.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
And why do you think Operations Sindur should be taught
in colleges across the world.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
So many elements of it, from the tactical, operational, strategic,
I mean, of course, the strategic.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
An entire nation.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Has changed its doctrine towards responding to terrorism. You and
I have talked in the past. I've studied the twenty
six eleven by attacks, twenty sixteen, twenty nineteen. This is
a strategic shift, a new doctrine, not just in responding
to terrorism immediately, but also under this nuclear umbrella that
has kind of paralyzed much of the world out of
(01:59):
fear rather than leadership, as was shown during Operation Sindoor.
It's like, look, we're going to not live in fear.
We will respond in a limited fashion. Of course, I'm
studying all the tactics that were you know, for everything
from beyond visual range. You know, two nations aren't even
near their own territory or their borders, and launching military
(02:21):
superiority not just in offensive capabilities like India demonstrated, but
also in defensive capabilities.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Which again that was able to demonstrates. Right. So you know,
since you drew this parallel between twenty six eleven movement tyro.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Attacks in two thousand and eight and you were here
in India, you covered twenty six eleven in your appreciation.
What have been the differences between twenty six eleven India's
response or the lack of fit and a post Pahlgam
operations in dur Yeah.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
So after twenty six eleven it was a different world,
but there was no response. There was an appeal to
international community, a supposed sanction negotiations David Headley and Rana
which has been a recent of development which is amazing,
but there's really no deterians, no immediate response. Really, this
military response sets a new standard on immediate response from
(03:13):
any terrorist attack.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Really, and these are two nuclear weapon countries, both India
and Pakistan declared nuclear weapon states using beyond visual range missiles.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Has something like this happened anywhere in the world, not
that I can track.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
And this has been very significant, not just the advancements
and technologies and the ranges of these from not just
the missiles but also the drones. It has to be studied,
but also from what the goals are A lot of
people get confused about what wars are, what they're not,
what the goals should be versus what is done. India here,
(03:46):
which I'll use to study, showed really leadership and communication.
So from the first day after the awful terrorist attack,
they've showed leadership on this is what we're responding, this
is what we're hitting, this is why we're doing it.
Don't escalate, paction escalated. And then that communication of the
same message from the political leadership and the military leadership
(04:08):
and democracies is really hard to do. Sometimes they're not
on the same sheet of music as we say. But
that clarity was a big part of why operations Indoor
was so direct limited. India showed restraint. That will be
part of the study as well. Because we live in
a world. You live in it more than I do
of information, narrative, warfare, things like that, and communicating is
(04:29):
so vital in war now, so.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Was India able to communicate that message because that are
many commentators who say that India may have won the
war on ground strategic communications and messaging Pakistan perhaps initially
at least was a shade better.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
No, I don't think so. So you know, with the
evidence right. So what we say in God, I trust
all others bring data. So India was able to and
when they're communicated, which I was very unique, when all
the military commanders were there. Here's the satellite image of
we hit, here's the creator. That level of bringing the
evidence as well as communicating was very unique in India
(05:07):
dominated in that product.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
It's interesting, what a beautiful line in God, I trust
everyone else bring data And Pakistan brought absolutely no data
of the of the basis it claimed it targeted. Perhaps,
but they had more trust in America than God.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Were you? Were you in a way? I know I'm digressing,
but you.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Know, Pakistan reaching out to the United States of America
lunching at the White House, having that lunch at the
White House, does that takeaway from the international messaging if
you want to, uh, you know, set across that message
that a global state sponsor of terror will not be
on the global high table. And sadly Pakistan is including
(05:50):
a United Nations Security Council.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
You know, it's it's the chair. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
What I tell people that geopolitics is very complex, terrorism
shouldn't be. The message is very clear from this administration
that terrorism is not is a you knowilateral, there is
no double game here. So this is a new world
and I think Pakistan's waking up to the new world.
Of course, the relationships, for whatever reason, they're complex. I
(06:16):
don't think it detracts. And this is even with India's
ability to communicate. Here are the calls that were made
between Pakistan and India. That level of transparency for me
kind of gets through the noise of what is other
stories that aren't really the story.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Well that's very interesting.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Oh, absolutely, So there is a lot of noise, but
you've cut straight through the noise and gone down to
facts on ground. What did you find in terms of
let's break this down, So Pakistani terrorists or terrorists back
by Pakistan, they attacked Hindu pilgrims, They chose Hindu pilgrims
to kill in Pelgam and massacre twenty five of them.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
What did you find out from that point and beyond?
Speaker 3 (06:58):
So one was I don't think the the rest of
the world understands why this was called Operation Sindoor, That
that powder that recognizes as an Indian married woman and
the husbands that were lost on that awful day and
also children. I also found out that there's always an
underlying reason like why would they attack there now? And
the development that India has been doing in Kashmir with
(07:21):
twenty two million tourists last year and just the complete
investment in the area, how that would be threatening to
maybe a terrorist organization that wants to keep a certain
status quo. So that's been an interesting part of understanding
the precursor to Operations Sindor and but there have been
plenty of other ones.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
And the messaging, the choosing of those ninth targets to hit.
That's right, ninth terrorist targets including Muritken Babbalpur.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
What was your.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
Appreciation was one that was different than a previous right,
so not outside of the line of control, these were
strikes at a range, but also very clear messaging these
are terrorist locations, we're hitting them the time that they
were hitting at deep at night to try to limit
civilian casualties. A lot of lessons there, and then of
course you see what the Pakistan response to that was
(08:08):
really escalation and in that phase was the immediate dominance
and I think even surprising the Indians of how layered
their defenses was of India to stop a drone swarm
which in other parts of the world has shown as effective.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Interesting, you should point that out.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
You're right, the the Akash theory system, India's multi layered
air defense system was able to stop the drones. You've
covered conflict and you've you've been a part of conflict
in Gaza.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
You've you've you've been in Gaza, Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
You've been in Ukraine, and I've also reported both the
Russia Ukraine war in Ukraine for two and a half months,
I was there. But why is it that India was
able to stop these incoming drones. Russia hasn't been able
to do that in a big way. Israel to an extent,
hasn't been able to do that despite having the Iron Dome.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
It's an interesting parallel. I was also in Nigana Karabak
between a berjon in Armenia when really the drones started
to be popular. There are reasons for each one, like
the Iron Dome, and it's it is layered as well.
But when you're taking drone swarms with cruise ballistic missiles
and a swarm, you know, ten percent fifteen percent get through,
there's still a lot in a very small area. I'm
(09:18):
still looking at how India was able to show dominance
with both legacy systems. So something just shoots bullets in
the air with advanced system that's right, that's right, And
I've done this before when talking to you, like you're
ahead of me and I need to learn from you
in somebody system. But and the fact that the Indian
(09:39):
military was practicing responding to drone attack before the drone attack.
I think you've seen some of those interviews, which is
as an old soldier, that's important as well because you
can have capabilities, but you have to have training and
practice and be ready for everything that comes at you.
So I don't know all this the exact technologies that
were there, although India is developing technology that will be
(10:01):
important for the rest of the world. Because this drone
counter drone fight is a part of warfare.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
It isn't you know.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
What people try to say is like everything about the
future of warfare, it's a component that you have to
account for. Clearly, India did plus with what I'm really
looking at between twenty nineteen and now is that making India.
You know, indigenous systems like a kash and romas and
other things that were a big part of the success
of this operation.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Your appreciation of why the Pakistani system did not work
or the Chinese system did not work. What was your
reading of this tango between you know, the Dragon and
the pakistanis.
Speaker 3 (10:42):
Yeah, I think one of the things, and that was
definitely a big part of this. Right, Paccinia is basically
a Chinese proxy with most of their equipment. Some people
believe it's a degraded version of Chinese. I'm not so sure,
but clearly India gave a masterclass not just on superior weapons,
but although integration, because just like in the air Paksina
wasn't able to stop any Indian attack any location. The
(11:04):
radar and the air defense systems weren't even if they
were of quality, clearly they're not. They weren't integrated, so
they weren't able to So a lot of nuances there
on those lessons very specific to the system and why
they didn't perform even as they were sold to perform.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
That's a very critical point to make. You're absolutely right.
So you know, while they have the HQ nines in
the HQ sixteen's and a lot more, they're not integrated
and a lot of their Western equipment does not speak
to the Chinese equipment so that's again a major problem
with the Pakistani it seems the decision making in the country.
(11:42):
What was your reading of that decision making in the
country at the political level and at the military level.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
I think it's still learning and learn the lossns being
on the ground, and this is why you have to
come in a democracy that political leadership of the military
is always a kind of sometimes, but when it works together,
it's very powerful. And that's what I see in this
operation is clear objectives stated from the political military and
(12:09):
communication back and forth on what's going on. In order
for a political leader to have basically clarity of message,
he has to be informed on the military situation, be
given best military advice for the decision on Okay, we
got to respond, but here's our options as of right now.
In my research, that synchronizing of the two, the political
(12:29):
and the military, which is very important in a democracy
where legitimacy and every aspect is also as important in
keeping things contained because you always have the voices of
like you got to hit them, now, you get them,
why you're stopping, And it's on the political leadership to
say no, if this is our goal, this isn't about Pakistan,
This isn't about the Pakistani people. It's about terrorism. That's
why we chose these targets. So you see a lot
(12:51):
of lessons here in that working together at the political
military level.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
Interesting. You're absolutely right.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
So nine devist tuggets acquired and successfully including Bahawalpur and
Muriitk And since you were here post twenty six to eleven,
Bahawalpur and Murik and some of the other targets in
Pakistan occupied Kashmir, the armed forces had them in their
in their target list. Even earlier, the political clearance never
came to hit.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Bahawalpur and Murik.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
So the heart of Pakistan's Panjab Province seven.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
That's striking the heart of the enemy.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
And you can't lead in fear. So there's that element.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
The world is different.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
So I can't criticize past governments. I can definitely assess
this government, but I can I do historical research as well,
and you have to know those differences here for sure.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
True, true, But yeah, not criticizing past governments, but just
just think of the difference in action then and such
strong action now when you strike in the heart of
the enemy, are you striking.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Fear in the heart of the enemy, is.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
That theam This has been the other aspect again why
our person center has to be studied, because war is
an act of force to compel your enemy to do
your will. Of course you want Paxson as an institution
to stop with the proxy war of the terrorist organization.
You can't get into the mind of every terrorist, but
as a nation you can definitely set a new doctrine,
(14:12):
which is what's happened, that there will be overwhelming military
response immediately, and that speed is important as well. As
you saw for this operation compared to other ones like
twenty nineteen, that amount of time before a response and
how quickly this is both the actions are happening, but
also how fastests contained. Yes, I think you've tiered and
(14:34):
raised the trance level by controlling the escalation ladder. Am
I saying you've tiered all terrorism unlikely? But you've definitely
drew a line in the sand, and red lines only
work when they're truly red lines.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Was Operations Sindur a true red line fort Pociston in
your appreciation?
Speaker 1 (14:50):
I do?
Speaker 3 (14:51):
I think so. With the Prime Minister's very clear statements,
there is no aspect of negotiation on we will respond
with the media force to any terrorist attack. We will
not be blackmailed by nuclear threats and which are reckless
and nobody should be doing. I think both those aspects
are very clear in establishing a new doctrine for India
(15:11):
in general, not just this government.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
So initially nine terrorist targets were acquired, but that was
the time that we were told that Pakistan was also
prepared and it succeeded in targeting.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
So we are told some.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Of our assets, some of our aircraft, and then the
next day India went and hit the enemy radar systems
and multiple radar systems. Now we have many more details
of where those radars were hit and not restrict to
any one part, but including in Pakistan's Punjab province and
(15:43):
in the sind the province in Karachi Malir contonment for example,
and went and hit eleven terrorists eleven Pakistan air Force bases.
What do you make of those eleven Pakistan Air Force
bases being hit, including you know mur Khan Mushada Bullari,
Jacob A Rahimyar, scut of do Wing Pakistan occupied.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
Yeah, I think what I make from it? Again, I
don't even have the of course I'm learning, but the
strategic decisions that had to be made on what targets
and what message was being meant was being sent by
that target, So location really mattered, and range how far
If you can hit any target within past CLO, that's right.
(16:29):
And and then what capability was it demonstrating like even
your most advanced air to fice radar and this basically
defensive system will not work. So it was sending a
message on multiple levels. So each one of those targets
was a message and decided upon between the military making
recommendation political authorization for them, and the message I think
(16:51):
was received quickly.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
You think so. I think.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
So they called and asked for whatever you want to
call it, cease fire or stopping the shooting. That's winning
in warfare when you compelled your enemy to do your will,
which is stop escalating this operation for whatever reason. Now
you seek political means. I know the INDUS treaty and
you know all the element of national power is a
(17:15):
part of this. But you clearly sent the message because
they call and ask for a halt.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
You've studied Pakistan, and you've studied Pakistan post twenty six
eleven move by Terran attacks because they massacred one hundred
and sixty six.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
People in Mumbai.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
I was there in Mumbai covering that massacre and sadly
it was terrible reporting that for three days, watching all
those lives lost and that glee you know, across even
though they claim they carried out an investigation, but till date,
they haven't taken any action against the perpetrators. In your appreciation,
do you think the Pakistani military leadership, because even after
(17:49):
twenty six eleven, they continue to hit India. Do you
think after this incident Operation Sindhur, will the Pakistani military
leadership think twice, thrice, four times before the attempts another.
Speaker 3 (18:04):
I think so they'll definitely think through their decision making.
Will that give up the institutional basically support As you
see Pakistani generals attending terrorists funerals and making very problematic statements.
There's always hope, but there's you've got to be, you know,
pragmatic about it. Where you're right after twenty six eleven,
(18:28):
after even this event, I think the world is is
more for me as a kind of a global war perspective.
The world is paying attention, The world is paying attention,
and the world is changing. What we've see in Iran
is also a part of this, that export of terrorism,
the double game. I think all of these make even
(18:48):
Pakistan rethink their strategies. Will that change their deep hilled,
you know, thoughts towards ideologies and things like that, unlikely,
but the cost of actions that kind of relations are
definitely different now.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
And there's a saying, I mean, I've heard the Israelis
use this often that you have to keep mowing the grass,
you know, because you've done it now, but it will
grow again and you'll have terrorists striking you again, maybe
after one year, maybe after two years, maybe after five years.
You need to keep striking. So is that your appreciation
that India will keep have? You know?
Speaker 1 (19:23):
So initially twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
After that Uri attack, there was a shallow surgical strike
multiple locations either side of pir Funchal ranges, but there
was one after Pulwama, there was Balacote strike, one location targeted.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
But now there were like.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
Eleven air bases, thirteen radar including radar stations maybe on standby.
You think India will keep escalating. That's the only way
escalating the response to Pakistani terror.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
So I'm actually anti Awarri, even though I have a
lot of job security because there is a lot of
conflict around even India's post. This is what I'm here
to learn, Like, what are the lessons that India will
take it from this at only how do you prevent
it from happening again along the border security aspect, but
also that strategic doctrine, so like the idea of preemptive strike,
so no longer you get to wait for attack. India says,
(20:10):
what if I see an imminent attack, then I can
I will strike. That strategic independence that was shown during
sndor's very vital as well. So it's hard to say,
but clearly yes, India will be even more prepared to
respond immediately to make sure that that escalation dominance, as
we say, can be controlled and hopefully you get to
(20:32):
the trance that you want. But even an idea of
preemptiveness is new right for India.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
What's the biggest message for Pakistan? What's the biggest lesson
for Pakistan?
Speaker 3 (20:41):
In your appreciation, I think one of the biggest lessons
for Pakistan is having some bit of knowledge, is that
you need to focus on your internal issues rather than
talking about trying to take down other people. The inflation,
the development that isn't there things like that. You would
hope that this for all countries. We want human shared values,
like we want prosperity, want development within our nation, and
(21:05):
I know that right now that's kind of in turmoil
in Pakistan. The message would be take care of your people.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
What's the message for China, because I know you study
Urban WFE, and you know as a soldier, and America also.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Studies China very closely.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
What's the message for China in terms of their equipment,
in terms of their training, tactics was Some have argued
that a lot of what Pakistan did was Chinese satellite information,
Chinese guidance, and Chinese tactics.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
One is, so I don't communicate to China much, but
I mean the message there is that they've learned their
lessons from this operation where their equipment failed, where their
even ideals of what their own military could do, which
is always the war is always a test to your military,
and I've seen it from every military in the world.
When they get put to the tests and they falter,
(21:53):
do they learn the right lessons? And I see that
around the world. You would I'm not saying I'm hoping
they learn their own lessons, but the message is there
that your equipment didn't do what it was sold to do.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
As far as India.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Is concerned, what would be the biggest stake away from
operations in Dura No, I know the operations are still on,
but the.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
Biggest stake away, I mean, I think the biggest takeaway
is that the investment was worth the cause. So the
investment making India those indigenous systems and the basically the
even the DRDO investments and innovations with the lasers and
all that aspect.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Was paying off.
Speaker 3 (22:30):
And so I know that they're not my world, but
they're going to continue that and get towards that ninety
percent self reliant and be the innovators, the data innovators
and every technology. AI that this was the test of
that investment and it paid off.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
So keep going, and more standoff weapons given the kind
of you know, urban warfare is also changing. For decades,
we would reporting in close quarter combat for decades in
Jembo Winchrishmida or in Mumbai twenty six eleven, for example,
it was all you know CQB operations. But now are
(23:10):
we looking at more stand up weapons and are we
looking at I don't want to use the word privacy
because it'll lead to a conflict between the Army and
the air Force and the navy.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
But are we looking at more effective use of airpart.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
And missile park So no is the answer, and as
no the infantry in guy, not just because I was infantry,
but even the DJAO said, look, this system was only
able to be as effective because of the joint operations,
because of the Navy, the air ground systems, the Army systems.
And the one lesson of all warfare around the globe
is stop trying to shrink your militaries to nothing, relying
(23:44):
on only technology. That's a bad lesson that countries have
to relearn. You have to invest in defense and that
includes having ground forces because you can't take and hold
ground or defend ground without ground forces. No technology is
going to save you there. So they definitely know. But
this is what Sindoor is about. Sindoor is about integration
(24:05):
of joint capabilities, and they synchronize it better than the
enemy did and that showed dominance.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
So you have to keep that up.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
But you can't think that technology is going to make
things cheaper on the ground pores.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
You need it all what a brilliant Oh. I completely
agree with you because I've been on ground. I've spent
time with the air defense people, and you're absolutely right
because every inch has to be protected. Any chink in
your armor, the enemy will exploit this, right, So you
need to you need to have that network centric warfare
(24:40):
with troops on ground to be able to effectively guide
those weapons to take down the incoming.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
Thread, all aspects of it. So I don't believe in
a world of robotic warfare. It's still the world of
hard men and women. And I know the uppers Cindora
highlighted some of the women warriors.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
Oh yes, on the front lines, on the front line.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
You need hard women and men doing hard things to
dominate in battle.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
That's a brilliant lesson. You're right.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
So in the Army Air Defense, one of our very strategic,
whital assets, the Pakistan had tried to target it and
it used a lot of high speed missiles, it used
its drones, it used a lot of other stuff coming
in And there was this lady officer of Army Air
(25:27):
Defense and she was guiding her weapons to counter some
of them. And you know from the World War era
ZU twenty three akak gun to the L seventy, to
the Shilkas to the latest Akash missiles. Everything was being
used simultaneously in that operation.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
It only happens to a lot of training. So that
moment of success only came after hours and hours of
training and training and training more. And I saw that
with an Indian general talking about how right after the
terrorist attack they were still drilling for like drone incoming drones.
Speaker 1 (26:04):
All of that.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
You only get this dominance and this good performance through
hours and hours of hard work.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
What future do you see of WFE in this region?
And you, since you were in Ukraine, you're looking at
the Russia Ukraine War. And now I want to now
move international. I want to ask you about Israel and Iran,
Israel and Hamas, but first Russia and Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (26:28):
Do you see intensification there? Absolutely, because I believe that.
Speaker 3 (26:32):
I mean, there are things that are worth fighting and
dying for, like sovereign borders, freedom. So in that case,
but at the scale that most people can't comprehend a
million plus men and women on both sides static lines.
But there are also differences in variations of breakthroughs war.
There's always the contests of will and if anybody tries
(26:54):
to come on your show and predict the future of that,
then just throw them out because there's so many variations.
European Union investing and matching certain investments in Ukrainees. I
believe personally from the history of war that freedom and
democracy and things like that are worth fighting for us.
I don't like when people say, you know, what are
they dying for? Is it's a you know, intractable situation
(27:17):
as the lines are frozen all of that junk at
this time. But Ukraine's fighting for his freedom. Russians are
fighting for what Putin says they're fighting for. I don't
agree with those but as a warfare analyst, I understand
why the lines are the way they are, why the
drones are so pervasive, because both sides don't have air supremacy.
(27:38):
I can't tell you where it's going to go. Hopefully
and in soon, but nobody knows.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
And again, in Israel and Iran and Israel and Hamas,
two different conflicts that are happening simultaneously and who these
still continue to you know pipe In, you see an
escalation there too, because Israel, with all its might in
American support.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
Hasn't been able to put it on down and out.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
Yeah, it's an interesting one again, and it coincided with
Sindor on helping people understand the difference between limited goals
in a war and an unlimited goal in the war
against Tamash after the awful terrorist attack of October seventh,
and there's so many similarities here globally, like how awful
and vicious these terrorist attacks are.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
Yet the goal is to.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
Unlimited take Kamas out of power in that territory, take
all their military capability. That's really hard for any military
to do let alone while you're fighting HESBLA. The who
these Shia acted militias in Iraq is Syrian starts to
fall apart then Asad GV a SAD regime. But with
Iran the goal is very limited. This another terrorist regime
(28:48):
with a nucle weapon. The entire world doesn't want Israel
acting preemptively and achieved a limited success in stopping them
from getting a newgo war immediately. It doesn't mean anything's over,
but there was dominance shown equally and the objective was
shown there. While Israel still has a lot to happen,
but there's already talk of a possible hostage deal going
(29:11):
on as we might see this week or if not,
I mean, Israel's got to continue that operation and it
takes time.
Speaker 1 (29:17):
So is this the future of warfare? That you have
limited goals?
Speaker 2 (29:22):
You set a limited goal and you achieve it, and
then you leave it for another day for that decisive action.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
Is that what you're saying.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
No, I'm trying to help people understand that each war
has its own context and has its own goalsts it
is the and we say this in America right because
there's people that have ideals about the legacy of a
Iraq in Afghanistan. When you have a goal and then
the goal changes and you don't have a path towards
that goal, there is that aspect of war. I can't
I mean the future is that only the dead have
(29:52):
known the end of war, unfortunately, But there is this
element of I do believe in peace through strength, and
what we're seeing in the last three plus four years
and is a unraveling of the global international order, the standards,
sovereign minds and proxy warfare being allowed to continue. That
you have a re establishment of that. So we may
(30:13):
see an era of peace that we haven't had because
of a lot of failed foreign policy up to this moment.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
Very interesting you say peace through strength.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Has India been able to display that strength in operations?
Speaker 1 (30:28):
Absolutely?
Speaker 3 (30:29):
And I think it's so many elements of strategic leadership
on what does that mean? What does that mean? Some
people try to say that means just no fighting at all. No,
it means if you are strong, it tears violence against you,
so you have a peace. Absolutely, India put themselves on
a path to send that message which will lead to
more peace, but also signal that there will be a cost. Again,
(30:53):
and it's really hard for non people like us that
have studied war for a long time to understand, like,
you have to be violent at times to get people
to achieve the piece.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
That you want. You have to be violent to achieve piece.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Yes, and India was able to achieve that to an
extent that sent across the message.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
That if need be, we will be violent.
Speaker 2 (31:13):
We will hurt you if it takes us towards our
Google four piece.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
Absolutely. If not, the operation wouldn't have ended so quickly.
I mean two nuclear armed nations going at each other,
but being able to demonstrate that that the tearance on
that works if you have the capability and the will
to use it. So we saw kind of internationally even
after these Setaria attacks in India, a lack of will
for many reasons, fear sometimes or just diplomatic concerns. You
(31:40):
have to have the capability as well to do it
at a certain speed and force that is convincing to
your enemy and India has India did that and Pakistan
got that mess it. They definitely got it in this operation.
Now we'll see nobody can predict. I think this set
sustandard for more. The tyrance is what you want and
(32:01):
then change of strategic doctrine.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Is the world also appreciating India's message. Has Prime Minister
and Arndramudi and his team being able to convey that
message because this is something that India is repeatedly trying
to tell the world. Pakistan state sponsored radical Islamis STATA
is unacceptable, I think.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
And there's stuff going on I know in the Foreign
Minister and the Prime Minister on trips right now. I
think that message was not only sin but it's being
reiterated multiple times that this is the new India, but
also the development goals. There's so much promise going on,
and not just in the aspect of deterian terrorism, but
also in development, which will bring strength. Your greatest strength
(32:42):
is your allies. You have to have strategic indepinions, of course,
but all of these initiatives that are growing India or
part of building Indias stronger and stronger, which with each initiative, really.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
At West Point or any other location, what would you
be teaching your students about operations simbu.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
One is being able to objectively state the facts of
what was happening, what caused it with the terrorist attack
and then each iteration because sometimes we try to so
much is going on in the world that we're missing
these lessons and why it's different. I have good case studies,
which actually Mumbi two thousand and eight is a bad
case study for the investments that allow for the vulnerability,
(33:24):
the response and disintegration. This will be a very positive
case study at the highest level to nuclear armed nations
and showing what right looks like in strategic communication, leadership, capability, dominance, escalation, dominance.
A very positive case study to teach.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
Colonel John Spenser.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
It's always such a pleasure troken to you, and I'm
so sorry that this conversation is so short, but hopefully
we'll have you back with us again for many, many,
many more.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
Such conversations we must do.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
Talking to you nice, talking to you
This is India Today podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Hello and welcome to an India Today special broadcast. We
are on the Chuck Review podcast and my guest today
is very special. He is a combat veteran and academic
and author, the chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West
Point and the difference between other academics and him. He
(00:29):
travels to the battle zone on ground and then forms
a picture and an opinion. Welcome Colonel Spencer for being
a part of the India Today Chuck Review podcast.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
It's great to meet you in person and your coverage
has been amazing.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Thank you very much. Your assessment of operations Sindur. You've
been studying operations Sindur. We've spoken about it, but you
you flew down to India to be able to assess
operations Sindur.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
What have you found out.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Something every day? I mean, I've learned that one thing
I've learned in my studies that you have to get
on the ground. You have to talk to military leaders,
political leaders, even media to know what was happening. Then
what were the lessons learned or not learned from the operation?
As I make an objective assessment of the operation, which
I think is should be recorded in history and taught
(01:22):
in warrior colleges around the world.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
And why do you think Operations Sindur should be taught
in colleges across the world.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
So many elements of it, from the tactical, operational, strategic,
I mean, of course, the strategic.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
An entire nation.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Has changed its doctrine towards responding to terrorism. You and
I have talked in the past. I've studied the twenty
six eleven by attacks, twenty sixteen, twenty nineteen. This is
a strategic shift, a new doctrine, not just in responding
to terrorism immediately, but also under this nuclear umbrella that
has kind of paralyzed much of the world out of
(01:59):
fear rather than leadership, as was shown during Operation Sindoor.
It's like, look, we're going to not live in fear.
We will respond in a limited fashion. Of course, I'm
studying all the tactics that were you know, for everything
from beyond visual range. You know, two nations aren't even
near their own territory or their borders, and launching military
(02:21):
superiority not just in offensive capabilities like India demonstrated, but
also in defensive capabilities.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Which again that was able to demonstrates. Right. So you know,
since you drew this parallel between twenty six eleven movement tyro.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Attacks in two thousand and eight and you were here
in India, you covered twenty six eleven in your appreciation.
What have been the differences between twenty six eleven India's
response or the lack of fit and a post Pahlgam
operations in dur Yeah.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
So after twenty six eleven it was a different world,
but there was no response. There was an appeal to
international community, a supposed sanction negotiations David Headley and Rana
which has been a recent of development which is amazing,
but there's really no deterians, no immediate response. Really, this
military response sets a new standard on immediate response from
(03:13):
any terrorist attack.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Really, and these are two nuclear weapon countries, both India
and Pakistan declared nuclear weapon states using beyond visual range missiles.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Has something like this happened anywhere in the world, not
that I can track.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
And this has been very significant, not just the advancements
and technologies and the ranges of these from not just
the missiles but also the drones. It has to be studied,
but also from what the goals are A lot of
people get confused about what wars are, what they're not,
what the goals should be versus what is done. India here,
(03:46):
which I'll use to study, showed really leadership and communication.
So from the first day after the awful terrorist attack,
they've showed leadership on this is what we're responding, this
is what we're hitting, this is why we're doing it.
Don't escalate, paction escalated. And then that communication of the
same message from the political leadership and the military leadership
(04:08):
and democracies is really hard to do. Sometimes they're not
on the same sheet of music as we say. But
that clarity was a big part of why operations Indoor
was so direct limited. India showed restraint. That will be
part of the study as well. Because we live in
a world. You live in it more than I do
of information, narrative, warfare, things like that, and communicating is
(04:29):
so vital in war now, so.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Was India able to communicate that message because that are
many commentators who say that India may have won the
war on ground strategic communications and messaging Pakistan perhaps initially
at least was a shade better.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
No, I don't think so. So you know, with the
evidence right. So what we say in God, I trust
all others bring data. So India was able to and
when they're communicated, which I was very unique, when all
the military commanders were there. Here's the satellite image of
we hit, here's the creator. That level of bringing the
evidence as well as communicating was very unique in India
(05:07):
dominated in that product.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
It's interesting, what a beautiful line in God, I trust
everyone else bring data And Pakistan brought absolutely no data
of the of the basis it claimed it targeted. Perhaps,
but they had more trust in America than God.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Were you? Were you in a way? I know I'm digressing,
but you.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Know, Pakistan reaching out to the United States of America
lunching at the White House, having that lunch at the
White House, does that takeaway from the international messaging if
you want to, uh, you know, set across that message
that a global state sponsor of terror will not be
on the global high table. And sadly Pakistan is including
(05:50):
a United Nations Security Council.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
You know, it's it's the chair. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
What I tell people that geopolitics is very complex, terrorism
shouldn't be. The message is very clear from this administration
that terrorism is not is a you knowilateral, there is
no double game here. So this is a new world
and I think Pakistan's waking up to the new world.
Of course, the relationships, for whatever reason, they're complex. I
(06:16):
don't think it detracts. And this is even with India's
ability to communicate. Here are the calls that were made
between Pakistan and India. That level of transparency for me
kind of gets through the noise of what is other
stories that aren't really the story.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Well that's very interesting.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Oh, absolutely, So there is a lot of noise, but
you've cut straight through the noise and gone down to
facts on ground. What did you find in terms of
let's break this down, So Pakistani terrorists or terrorists back
by Pakistan, they attacked Hindu pilgrims, They chose Hindu pilgrims
to kill in Pelgam and massacre twenty five of them.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
What did you find out from that point and beyond?
Speaker 3 (06:58):
So one was I don't think the the rest of
the world understands why this was called Operation Sindoor, That
that powder that recognizes as an Indian married woman and
the husbands that were lost on that awful day and
also children. I also found out that there's always an
underlying reason like why would they attack there now? And
the development that India has been doing in Kashmir with
(07:21):
twenty two million tourists last year and just the complete
investment in the area, how that would be threatening to
maybe a terrorist organization that wants to keep a certain
status quo. So that's been an interesting part of understanding
the precursor to Operations Sindor and but there have been
plenty of other ones.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
And the messaging, the choosing of those ninth targets to hit.
That's right, ninth terrorist targets including Muritken Babbalpur.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
What was your.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
Appreciation was one that was different than a previous right,
so not outside of the line of control, these were
strikes at a range, but also very clear messaging these
are terrorist locations, we're hitting them the time that they
were hitting at deep at night to try to limit
civilian casualties. A lot of lessons there, and then of
course you see what the Pakistan response to that was
(08:08):
really escalation and in that phase was the immediate dominance
and I think even surprising the Indians of how layered
their defenses was of India to stop a drone swarm
which in other parts of the world has shown as effective.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Interesting, you should point that out.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
You're right, the the Akash theory system, India's multi layered
air defense system was able to stop the drones. You've
covered conflict and you've you've been a part of conflict
in Gaza.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
You've you've you've been in Gaza, Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
You've been in Ukraine, and I've also reported both the
Russia Ukraine war in Ukraine for two and a half months,
I was there. But why is it that India was
able to stop these incoming drones. Russia hasn't been able
to do that in a big way. Israel to an extent,
hasn't been able to do that despite having the Iron Dome.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
It's an interesting parallel. I was also in Nigana Karabak
between a berjon in Armenia when really the drones started
to be popular. There are reasons for each one, like
the Iron Dome, and it's it is layered as well.
But when you're taking drone swarms with cruise ballistic missiles
and a swarm, you know, ten percent fifteen percent get through,
there's still a lot in a very small area. I'm
(09:18):
still looking at how India was able to show dominance
with both legacy systems. So something just shoots bullets in
the air with advanced system that's right, that's right, And
I've done this before when talking to you, like you're
ahead of me and I need to learn from you
in somebody system. But and the fact that the Indian
(09:39):
military was practicing responding to drone attack before the drone attack.
I think you've seen some of those interviews, which is
as an old soldier, that's important as well because you
can have capabilities, but you have to have training and
practice and be ready for everything that comes at you.
So I don't know all this the exact technologies that
were there, although India is developing technology that will be
(10:01):
important for the rest of the world. Because this drone
counter drone fight is a part of warfare.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
It isn't you know.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
What people try to say is like everything about the
future of warfare, it's a component that you have to
account for. Clearly, India did plus with what I'm really
looking at between twenty nineteen and now is that making India.
You know, indigenous systems like a kash and romas and
other things that were a big part of the success
of this operation.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Your appreciation of why the Pakistani system did not work
or the Chinese system did not work. What was your
reading of this tango between you know, the Dragon and
the pakistanis.
Speaker 3 (10:42):
Yeah, I think one of the things, and that was
definitely a big part of this. Right, Paccinia is basically
a Chinese proxy with most of their equipment. Some people
believe it's a degraded version of Chinese. I'm not so sure,
but clearly India gave a masterclass not just on superior weapons,
but although integration, because just like in the air Paksina
wasn't able to stop any Indian attack any location. The
(11:04):
radar and the air defense systems weren't even if they
were of quality, clearly they're not. They weren't integrated, so
they weren't able to So a lot of nuances there
on those lessons very specific to the system and why
they didn't perform even as they were sold to perform.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
That's a very critical point to make. You're absolutely right.
So you know, while they have the HQ nines in
the HQ sixteen's and a lot more, they're not integrated
and a lot of their Western equipment does not speak
to the Chinese equipment so that's again a major problem
with the Pakistani it seems the decision making in the country.
(11:42):
What was your reading of that decision making in the
country at the political level and at the military level.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
I think it's still learning and learn the lossns being
on the ground, and this is why you have to
come in a democracy that political leadership of the military
is always a kind of sometimes, but when it works together,
it's very powerful. And that's what I see in this
operation is clear objectives stated from the political military and
(12:09):
communication back and forth on what's going on. In order
for a political leader to have basically clarity of message,
he has to be informed on the military situation, be
given best military advice for the decision on Okay, we
got to respond, but here's our options as of right now.
In my research, that synchronizing of the two, the political
(12:29):
and the military, which is very important in a democracy
where legitimacy and every aspect is also as important in
keeping things contained because you always have the voices of
like you got to hit them, now, you get them,
why you're stopping, And it's on the political leadership to
say no, if this is our goal, this isn't about Pakistan,
This isn't about the Pakistani people. It's about terrorism. That's
why we chose these targets. So you see a lot
(12:51):
of lessons here in that working together at the political
military level.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
Interesting. You're absolutely right.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
So nine devist tuggets acquired and successfully including Bahawalpur and
Muriitk And since you were here post twenty six to eleven,
Bahawalpur and Murik and some of the other targets in
Pakistan occupied Kashmir, the armed forces had them in their
in their target list. Even earlier, the political clearance never
came to hit.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Bahawalpur and Murik.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
So the heart of Pakistan's Panjab Province seven.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
That's striking the heart of the enemy.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
And you can't lead in fear. So there's that element.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
The world is different.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
So I can't criticize past governments. I can definitely assess
this government, but I can I do historical research as well,
and you have to know those differences here for sure.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
True, true, But yeah, not criticizing past governments, but just
just think of the difference in action then and such
strong action now when you strike in the heart of
the enemy, are you striking.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Fear in the heart of the enemy, is.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
That theam This has been the other aspect again why
our person center has to be studied, because war is
an act of force to compel your enemy to do
your will. Of course you want Paxson as an institution
to stop with the proxy war of the terrorist organization.
You can't get into the mind of every terrorist, but
as a nation you can definitely set a new doctrine,
(14:12):
which is what's happened, that there will be overwhelming military
response immediately, and that speed is important as well. As
you saw for this operation compared to other ones like
twenty nineteen, that amount of time before a response and
how quickly this is both the actions are happening, but
also how fastests contained. Yes, I think you've tiered and
(14:34):
raised the trance level by controlling the escalation ladder. Am
I saying you've tiered all terrorism unlikely? But you've definitely
drew a line in the sand, and red lines only
work when they're truly red lines.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Was Operations Sindur a true red line fort Pociston in
your appreciation?
Speaker 1 (14:50):
I do?
Speaker 3 (14:51):
I think so. With the Prime Minister's very clear statements,
there is no aspect of negotiation on we will respond
with the media force to any terrorist attack. We will
not be blackmailed by nuclear threats and which are reckless
and nobody should be doing. I think both those aspects
are very clear in establishing a new doctrine for India
(15:11):
in general, not just this government.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
So initially nine terrorist targets were acquired, but that was
the time that we were told that Pakistan was also
prepared and it succeeded in targeting.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
So we are told some.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Of our assets, some of our aircraft, and then the
next day India went and hit the enemy radar systems
and multiple radar systems. Now we have many more details
of where those radars were hit and not restrict to
any one part, but including in Pakistan's Punjab province and
(15:43):
in the sind the province in Karachi Malir contonment for example,
and went and hit eleven terrorists eleven Pakistan air Force bases.
What do you make of those eleven Pakistan Air Force
bases being hit, including you know mur Khan Mushada Bullari,
Jacob A Rahimyar, scut of do Wing Pakistan occupied.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
Yeah, I think what I make from it? Again, I
don't even have the of course I'm learning, but the
strategic decisions that had to be made on what targets
and what message was being meant was being sent by
that target, So location really mattered, and range how far
If you can hit any target within past CLO, that's right.
(16:29):
And and then what capability was it demonstrating like even
your most advanced air to fice radar and this basically
defensive system will not work. So it was sending a
message on multiple levels. So each one of those targets
was a message and decided upon between the military making
recommendation political authorization for them, and the message I think
(16:51):
was received quickly.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
You think so. I think.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
So they called and asked for whatever you want to
call it, cease fire or stopping the shooting. That's winning
in warfare when you compelled your enemy to do your will,
which is stop escalating this operation for whatever reason. Now
you seek political means. I know the INDUS treaty and
you know all the element of national power is a
(17:15):
part of this. But you clearly sent the message because
they call and ask for a halt.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
You've studied Pakistan, and you've studied Pakistan post twenty six
eleven move by Terran attacks because they massacred one hundred
and sixty six.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
People in Mumbai.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
I was there in Mumbai covering that massacre and sadly
it was terrible reporting that for three days, watching all
those lives lost and that glee you know, across even
though they claim they carried out an investigation, but till date,
they haven't taken any action against the perpetrators. In your appreciation,
do you think the Pakistani military leadership, because even after
(17:49):
twenty six eleven, they continue to hit India. Do you
think after this incident Operation Sindhur, will the Pakistani military
leadership think twice, thrice, four times before the attempts another.
Speaker 3 (18:04):
I think so they'll definitely think through their decision making.
Will that give up the institutional basically support As you
see Pakistani generals attending terrorists funerals and making very problematic statements.
There's always hope, but there's you've got to be, you know,
pragmatic about it. Where you're right after twenty six eleven,
(18:28):
after even this event, I think the world is is
more for me as a kind of a global war perspective.
The world is paying attention, The world is paying attention,
and the world is changing. What we've see in Iran
is also a part of this, that export of terrorism,
the double game. I think all of these make even
(18:48):
Pakistan rethink their strategies. Will that change their deep hilled,
you know, thoughts towards ideologies and things like that, unlikely,
but the cost of actions that kind of relations are
definitely different now.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
And there's a saying, I mean, I've heard the Israelis
use this often that you have to keep mowing the grass,
you know, because you've done it now, but it will
grow again and you'll have terrorists striking you again, maybe
after one year, maybe after two years, maybe after five years.
You need to keep striking. So is that your appreciation
that India will keep have? You know?
Speaker 1 (19:23):
So initially twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
After that Uri attack, there was a shallow surgical strike
multiple locations either side of pir Funchal ranges, but there
was one after Pulwama, there was Balacote strike, one location targeted.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
But now there were like.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
Eleven air bases, thirteen radar including radar stations maybe on standby.
You think India will keep escalating. That's the only way
escalating the response to Pakistani terror.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
So I'm actually anti Awarri, even though I have a
lot of job security because there is a lot of
conflict around even India's post. This is what I'm here
to learn, Like, what are the lessons that India will
take it from this at only how do you prevent
it from happening again along the border security aspect, but
also that strategic doctrine, so like the idea of preemptive strike,
so no longer you get to wait for attack. India says,
(20:10):
what if I see an imminent attack, then I can
I will strike. That strategic independence that was shown during
sndor's very vital as well. So it's hard to say,
but clearly yes, India will be even more prepared to
respond immediately to make sure that that escalation dominance, as
we say, can be controlled and hopefully you get to
(20:32):
the trance that you want. But even an idea of
preemptiveness is new right for India.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
What's the biggest message for Pakistan? What's the biggest lesson
for Pakistan?
Speaker 3 (20:41):
In your appreciation, I think one of the biggest lessons
for Pakistan is having some bit of knowledge, is that
you need to focus on your internal issues rather than
talking about trying to take down other people. The inflation,
the development that isn't there things like that. You would
hope that this for all countries. We want human shared values,
like we want prosperity, want development within our nation, and
(21:05):
I know that right now that's kind of in turmoil
in Pakistan. The message would be take care of your people.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
What's the message for China, because I know you study
Urban WFE, and you know as a soldier, and America also.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Studies China very closely.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
What's the message for China in terms of their equipment,
in terms of their training, tactics was Some have argued
that a lot of what Pakistan did was Chinese satellite information,
Chinese guidance, and Chinese tactics.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
One is, so I don't communicate to China much, but
I mean the message there is that they've learned their
lessons from this operation where their equipment failed, where their
even ideals of what their own military could do, which
is always the war is always a test to your military,
and I've seen it from every military in the world.
When they get put to the tests and they falter,
(21:53):
do they learn the right lessons? And I see that
around the world. You would I'm not saying I'm hoping
they learn their own lessons, but the message is there
that your equipment didn't do what it was sold to do.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
As far as India.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Is concerned, what would be the biggest stake away from
operations in Dura No, I know the operations are still on,
but the.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
Biggest stake away, I mean, I think the biggest takeaway
is that the investment was worth the cause. So the
investment making India those indigenous systems and the basically the
even the DRDO investments and innovations with the lasers and
all that aspect.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Was paying off.
Speaker 3 (22:30):
And so I know that they're not my world, but
they're going to continue that and get towards that ninety
percent self reliant and be the innovators, the data innovators
and every technology. AI that this was the test of
that investment and it paid off.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
So keep going, and more standoff weapons given the kind
of you know, urban warfare is also changing. For decades,
we would reporting in close quarter combat for decades in
Jembo Winchrishmida or in Mumbai twenty six eleven, for example,
it was all you know CQB operations. But now are
(23:10):
we looking at more stand up weapons and are we
looking at I don't want to use the word privacy
because it'll lead to a conflict between the Army and
the air Force and the navy.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
But are we looking at more effective use of airpart.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
And missile park So no is the answer, and as
no the infantry in guy, not just because I was infantry,
but even the DJAO said, look, this system was only
able to be as effective because of the joint operations,
because of the Navy, the air ground systems, the Army systems.
And the one lesson of all warfare around the globe
is stop trying to shrink your militaries to nothing, relying
(23:44):
on only technology. That's a bad lesson that countries have
to relearn. You have to invest in defense and that
includes having ground forces because you can't take and hold
ground or defend ground without ground forces. No technology is
going to save you there. So they definitely know. But
this is what Sindoor is about. Sindoor is about integration
(24:05):
of joint capabilities, and they synchronize it better than the
enemy did and that showed dominance.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
So you have to keep that up.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
But you can't think that technology is going to make
things cheaper on the ground pores.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
You need it all what a brilliant Oh. I completely
agree with you because I've been on ground. I've spent
time with the air defense people, and you're absolutely right
because every inch has to be protected. Any chink in
your armor, the enemy will exploit this, right, So you
need to you need to have that network centric warfare
(24:40):
with troops on ground to be able to effectively guide
those weapons to take down the incoming.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
Thread, all aspects of it. So I don't believe in
a world of robotic warfare. It's still the world of
hard men and women. And I know the uppers Cindora
highlighted some of the women warriors.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
Oh yes, on the front lines, on the front line.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
You need hard women and men doing hard things to
dominate in battle.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
That's a brilliant lesson. You're right.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
So in the Army Air Defense, one of our very strategic,
whital assets, the Pakistan had tried to target it and
it used a lot of high speed missiles, it used
its drones, it used a lot of other stuff coming
in And there was this lady officer of Army Air
(25:27):
Defense and she was guiding her weapons to counter some
of them. And you know from the World War era
ZU twenty three akak gun to the L seventy, to
the Shilkas to the latest Akash missiles. Everything was being
used simultaneously in that operation.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
It only happens to a lot of training. So that
moment of success only came after hours and hours of
training and training and training more. And I saw that
with an Indian general talking about how right after the
terrorist attack they were still drilling for like drone incoming drones.
Speaker 1 (26:04):
All of that.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
You only get this dominance and this good performance through
hours and hours of hard work.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
What future do you see of WFE in this region?
And you, since you were in Ukraine, you're looking at
the Russia Ukraine War. And now I want to now
move international. I want to ask you about Israel and Iran,
Israel and Hamas, but first Russia and Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (26:28):
Do you see intensification there? Absolutely, because I believe that.
Speaker 3 (26:32):
I mean, there are things that are worth fighting and
dying for, like sovereign borders, freedom. So in that case,
but at the scale that most people can't comprehend a
million plus men and women on both sides static lines.
But there are also differences in variations of breakthroughs war.
There's always the contests of will and if anybody tries
(26:54):
to come on your show and predict the future of that,
then just throw them out because there's so many variations.
European Union investing and matching certain investments in Ukrainees. I
believe personally from the history of war that freedom and
democracy and things like that are worth fighting for us.
I don't like when people say, you know, what are
they dying for? Is it's a you know, intractable situation
(27:17):
as the lines are frozen all of that junk at
this time. But Ukraine's fighting for his freedom. Russians are
fighting for what Putin says they're fighting for. I don't
agree with those but as a warfare analyst, I understand
why the lines are the way they are, why the
drones are so pervasive, because both sides don't have air supremacy.
(27:38):
I can't tell you where it's going to go. Hopefully
and in soon, but nobody knows.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
And again, in Israel and Iran and Israel and Hamas,
two different conflicts that are happening simultaneously and who these
still continue to you know pipe In, you see an
escalation there too, because Israel, with all its might in
American support.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
Hasn't been able to put it on down and out.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
Yeah, it's an interesting one again, and it coincided with
Sindor on helping people understand the difference between limited goals
in a war and an unlimited goal in the war
against Tamash after the awful terrorist attack of October seventh,
and there's so many similarities here globally, like how awful
and vicious these terrorist attacks are.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
Yet the goal is to.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
Unlimited take Kamas out of power in that territory, take
all their military capability. That's really hard for any military
to do let alone while you're fighting HESBLA. The who
these Shia acted militias in Iraq is Syrian starts to
fall apart then Asad GV a SAD regime. But with
Iran the goal is very limited. This another terrorist regime
(28:48):
with a nucle weapon. The entire world doesn't want Israel
acting preemptively and achieved a limited success in stopping them
from getting a newgo war immediately. It doesn't mean anything's over,
but there was dominance shown equally and the objective was
shown there. While Israel still has a lot to happen,
but there's already talk of a possible hostage deal going
(29:11):
on as we might see this week or if not,
I mean, Israel's got to continue that operation and it
takes time.
Speaker 1 (29:17):
So is this the future of warfare? That you have
limited goals?
Speaker 2 (29:22):
You set a limited goal and you achieve it, and
then you leave it for another day for that decisive action.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
Is that what you're saying.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
No, I'm trying to help people understand that each war
has its own context and has its own goalsts it
is the and we say this in America right because
there's people that have ideals about the legacy of a
Iraq in Afghanistan. When you have a goal and then
the goal changes and you don't have a path towards
that goal, there is that aspect of war. I can't
I mean the future is that only the dead have
(29:52):
known the end of war, unfortunately, But there is this
element of I do believe in peace through strength, and
what we're seeing in the last three plus four years
and is a unraveling of the global international order, the standards,
sovereign minds and proxy warfare being allowed to continue. That
you have a re establishment of that. So we may
(30:13):
see an era of peace that we haven't had because
of a lot of failed foreign policy up to this moment.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
Very interesting you say peace through strength.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Has India been able to display that strength in operations?
Speaker 1 (30:28):
Absolutely?
Speaker 3 (30:29):
And I think it's so many elements of strategic leadership
on what does that mean? What does that mean? Some
people try to say that means just no fighting at all. No,
it means if you are strong, it tears violence against you,
so you have a peace. Absolutely, India put themselves on
a path to send that message which will lead to
more peace, but also signal that there will be a cost. Again,
(30:53):
and it's really hard for non people like us that
have studied war for a long time to understand, like,
you have to be violent at times to get people
to achieve the piece.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
That you want. You have to be violent to achieve piece.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Yes, and India was able to achieve that to an
extent that sent across the message.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
That if need be, we will be violent.
Speaker 2 (31:13):
We will hurt you if it takes us towards our
Google four piece.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
Absolutely. If not, the operation wouldn't have ended so quickly.
I mean two nuclear armed nations going at each other,
but being able to demonstrate that that the tearance on
that works if you have the capability and the will
to use it. So we saw kind of internationally even
after these Setaria attacks in India, a lack of will
for many reasons, fear sometimes or just diplomatic concerns. You
(31:40):
have to have the capability as well to do it
at a certain speed and force that is convincing to
your enemy and India has India did that and Pakistan
got that mess it. They definitely got it in this operation.
Now we'll see nobody can predict. I think this set
sustandard for more. The tyrance is what you want and
(32:01):
then change of strategic doctrine.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Is the world also appreciating India's message. Has Prime Minister
and Arndramudi and his team being able to convey that
message because this is something that India is repeatedly trying
to tell the world. Pakistan state sponsored radical Islamis STATA
is unacceptable, I think.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
And there's stuff going on I know in the Foreign
Minister and the Prime Minister on trips right now. I
think that message was not only sin but it's being
reiterated multiple times that this is the new India, but
also the development goals. There's so much promise going on,
and not just in the aspect of deterian terrorism, but
also in development, which will bring strength. Your greatest strength
(32:42):
is your allies. You have to have strategic indepinions, of course,
but all of these initiatives that are growing India or
part of building Indias stronger and stronger, which with each initiative, really.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
At West Point or any other location, what would you
be teaching your students about operations simbu.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
One is being able to objectively state the facts of
what was happening, what caused it with the terrorist attack
and then each iteration because sometimes we try to so
much is going on in the world that we're missing
these lessons and why it's different. I have good case studies,
which actually Mumbi two thousand and eight is a bad
case study for the investments that allow for the vulnerability,
(33:24):
the response and disintegration. This will be a very positive
case study at the highest level to nuclear armed nations
and showing what right looks like in strategic communication, leadership, capability, dominance, escalation, dominance.
A very positive case study to teach.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
Colonel John Spenser.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
It's always such a pleasure troken to you, and I'm
so sorry that this conversation is so short, but hopefully
we'll have you back with us again for many, many,
many more.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
Such conversations we must do.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
Talking to you nice, talking to you
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com