The country has been seized of the audacious terror strike on IAF's Pathankot base for the last few days. The general media (and "expert") analyses seems to be converging around describing the operation as a disaster, with the consensus view being that this is as much of a fiasco operationally (though not in terms of casualties) as Mumbai 26/11.
As an armchair enthusiast, I find the above conclusion a bit puzzling. First up, what would have been the objectives of the folks that planned and executed this fidayeen attack?
1. Spring a surprise attack on a high profile military target to highlight India's vulnerabilities to such jihadi assaults.
2. Destroy aircraft and military assets, if possible.
3. Take hostages to prolong the operation and inflict large casualties, both military and civilian.
4. Perhaps most importantly, capture the media narrative.
So from the perspective of the jihadi groups, how did the outcomes stack up?
1. The attack wasnt a surprise, there was advance intelligence, and forces were waiting for them (even if the specific target wasnt known).
2. No military asset was destroyed. Indeed, IAF aircraft from the air base made repeated sorties in support of the operation. In other words the offensive capacity of the airbase was maintained while the terror attack was on.
3. No hostages were taken, no civilians were killed. Military casualties were high, and something that perhaps could have been minimised.
4. This was the success. The attack and its aftermath has surely captured the media narrative, and shaped it in the direction that the jihadis would have liked.
Tactically therefore, how was the operation a "failure", given that we denied the jihadis most of the desired tactical objectives? It would be interesting to compare this with a very similar incident, where an airbase was attacked with pretty much similar objectives. This was the Taliban attack on Camp Bastion. Camp Bastion is one of the largest coalition logistics and offensive air support base in Afghanistan, situated in the frontier Helmand province. During the attack, it housed a fleet of US Marine Corps (USMC) Harrier fighter aircraft, besides transport aircraft and choppers. Brief summary of the attack in the link below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2012_Camp_Bastion_raid
In short, the attack managed to destroy or damage 9 aircraft, including 8 Harrier fighters. While military casualties were low (2 killed), the tactical success for the Taliban was huge. And this despite the fact that Bastion, unlike Pathankot was not a family station, and hence housed only combat and support troops (not large numbers of civilians that slow down operations and increase risk of casualties).
While intelligence on an impending attack was much less specific for Bastion than it was for Pathankot, it was a military base in a combat zone (and hence always expecting to be attacked and therefore on hair trigger alert all the time).
It seems where we have lost out is on the media narrative. Seems as if we have managed to achieve in the media for the jihadis that they couldnt in the attack itself. The focus of the media narrative has been on blaming NSA, caviling over choice of forces (NSG versus Army) etc. Its important to control the media narrative in asymmetric conflict, and we seem to have a long way to go. Not just for the government, but for us collectively as a society.
As an armchair enthusiast, I find the above conclusion a bit puzzling. First up, what would have been the objectives of the folks that planned and executed this fidayeen attack?
1. Spring a surprise attack on a high profile military target to highlight India's vulnerabilities to such jihadi assaults.
2. Destroy aircraft and military assets, if possible.
3. Take hostages to prolong the operation and inflict large casualties, both military and civilian.
4. Perhaps most importantly, capture the media narrative.
So from the perspective of the jihadi groups, how did the outcomes stack up?
1. The attack wasnt a surprise, there was advance intelligence, and forces were waiting for them (even if the specific target wasnt known).
2. No military asset was destroyed. Indeed, IAF aircraft from the air base made repeated sorties in support of the operation. In other words the offensive capacity of the airbase was maintained while the terror attack was on.
3. No hostages were taken, no civilians were killed. Military casualties were high, and something that perhaps could have been minimised.
4. This was the success. The attack and its aftermath has surely captured the media narrative, and shaped it in the direction that the jihadis would have liked.
Tactically therefore, how was the operation a "failure", given that we denied the jihadis most of the desired tactical objectives? It would be interesting to compare this with a very similar incident, where an airbase was attacked with pretty much similar objectives. This was the Taliban attack on Camp Bastion. Camp Bastion is one of the largest coalition logistics and offensive air support base in Afghanistan, situated in the frontier Helmand province. During the attack, it housed a fleet of US Marine Corps (USMC) Harrier fighter aircraft, besides transport aircraft and choppers. Brief summary of the attack in the link below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2012_Camp_Bastion_raid
In short, the attack managed to destroy or damage 9 aircraft, including 8 Harrier fighters. While military casualties were low (2 killed), the tactical success for the Taliban was huge. And this despite the fact that Bastion, unlike Pathankot was not a family station, and hence housed only combat and support troops (not large numbers of civilians that slow down operations and increase risk of casualties).
While intelligence on an impending attack was much less specific for Bastion than it was for Pathankot, it was a military base in a combat zone (and hence always expecting to be attacked and therefore on hair trigger alert all the time).
It seems where we have lost out is on the media narrative. Seems as if we have managed to achieve in the media for the jihadis that they couldnt in the attack itself. The focus of the media narrative has been on blaming NSA, caviling over choice of forces (NSG versus Army) etc. Its important to control the media narrative in asymmetric conflict, and we seem to have a long way to go. Not just for the government, but for us collectively as a society.
