War: A Constant in Our Lives
Throughout recorded human history, war has been a constant feature of our lives, while there is also ample evidence to show that war existed even before humans could record and communicate their experiences in language. As historian Michael Howard notes, the documented evidence indicates that war has been the universal norm in human history. For the inhabitants of the ancient world, war was experienced as a natural consequence of life.
As societies evolved, becoming democratized, and military technology modernized, wars intensified and were transformed from the small wars of princes and kings to wars of people and entire nations in the twentieth century. The post-Cold War era did not lead to peace but was replete with multiple small wars in various parts of the world. The twenty-first century opened with the non-state actors’ misadventures and the subsequent wars against terror signified that war would remain an integral part of contemporary experience.
In the current milieu, when the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Gaza crisis, and the US-China rivalry are being experienced, war seems to have become a permanent social relation and a kind of general behavior to describe social organizations and relations of power in the contemporary world.
Communication During War
Communication plays a key role in our lives. It is believed that the natural aim of all communication is mutual understanding, so war and all forms of conflict are assumed to be the result of a breakdown of communication. However, it seems contrary to this belief. War appears to be another form of communication and as a matter of fact, communication continues throughout war, both internally and externally.
Let’s make use of Clausewitz’s most famous concept of “Trinity” as well as his words, “War is merely the continuation of policy by other means,” to substantiate this argument. War does not only forge better communication between the government, people, and military but also through every step one takes during the war or conflict. One intends to convey his intention to the adversary and suppress his will to fight, succumbing to one’s demands.
For instance, even though you are not engaged with the enemy via other forms of communication, you are still communicating with him through destructive means and continuously conveying your might, intentions, resolve, and desires. It is also the time when nations, governments, and militaries come closer to each other. Not only this, but there is constant communication with other audiences, such as allies, partners, and friends to convey to them their own will and agenda. It is thus an explicit way of communicating internally, externally, and laterally.
In the contemporary world characterized by the global spread of communication, awareness, and experience of real or media, mediated wars are increasingly acknowledged. We can safely assume that mass media reporting on war is the single most popular topic that attracts audiences, to the extent that war is usually considered an indicator of the health of the media.
This shows the essence of communication that lies within the war effort, which is deliberate and, to a great extent, directed towards the target audience. It is common that the media is fed with the war effort and the corresponding narratives to shape a conducive environment for achieving political objectives, driving the overall effort.
Evolving Character of War
Given that its nature as a means of communication remains unchanged, the character of war has certainly been changing with the evolution of technology. The wars that were fought hand-to-hand took a course of long-range vector attacks and have now rested on virtual means. Today, the relationship between war and communication is stronger than ever before. We now live in a virtual world, as we spend more time with our gadgets than with humans. Just realize that we are connected more often with our families, businesses, jobs, and the world through the internet.
With the advancement in technology, adversaries aim to disrupt this communication by attacking the vital communication nodes that link humans. Thus, the aim is to break communication between humans, systems, and processes, causing paralysis. It is discreet and dangerous. Mostly, one doesn’t even come to know of an enemy’s attack, which paralyzes virtual life, when connectivity with each other and the world is impeded.
We can safely say that today, along with the character of war, the concept of victory has also changed. Now, the focus is not on gaining something but on denying your adversary the use of vital communication links with the world because then the adversary is deprived of pivotal facilities and commodities during the war, which causes paralysis in the whole society, thus affecting the decision-making process of its leadership.
Also, because war is an internal communication with the local audience, concerted and focused effort is directed towards communicating its own narrative to the targeted audience which is the hallmark of today’s war strategy. So doing less and projecting more has become a norm. Today, despite having a mega arsenal in its inventory, an adversary can actually do little on the ground but can surely amplify the effort in the eyes of international and local audiences to convey its might, resolve, and intentions.
This is a growing trend and can be witnessed during India’s False Flag operations against Pakistan since the year 2016. Also, the Russia-Ukraine war, the Gaza conflict, and the Iran-Israel spat have manifested this concept where the adversaries have been blocking communication with the opponent and projecting their own undue successes. India’s obsession with the net security provider in the Indian Ocean also rested on this premise.
One flip side of this new character of war is the encroachment of authority of decision-makers on either side. As communication is not the property of any one side, there is always an effort to counter the adversary’s narrative by twisting it in its own favor. In that case, the happenings during the war may not proceed as intended originally. This is an interesting and unique phenomenon since it encroaches on the authority of decision-makers who, at times, find themselves in a quandary of how to continue with their plans.
Therefore, it is not only important to build a narrative but also to protect it from the adversary’s counter-narrative. Because of the availability of communication technology to civilians, there is always a danger of third-party intervention which can further complicate the situation for both adversaries. This is another threatening angle to this whole situation and the evolving phenomenon is worrisome and needs to be accorded due attention.
The upcoming trend is dangerous because it is fluid and invisible. For instance, in physical interaction during the war, there are tangible signs of aggression that an adversary creates against the other, providing a rationale for the response. But in virtuality, one may not even come to know about the attack while receiving serious damage till it is late. The rationality to respond is established quite late giving leverage to the aggressor to capitalise on his success.
It is also important to understand that time is critical in a conflict and with the passage of considerable time to respond, the rationality to react is sometimes lost. Hence in today’s era, there is a need to take a whole lot of actions and measures required to be undertaken before any conflict situation arises between the adversaries.
And for that, a comprehensive communication strategy is to be charted to tackle a situation whether it can be visualized or an unexpected action by the adversary. The comprehensiveness of this strategy does not only mean covering expected and unexpected situations but also involving all tiers and stakeholders including the populace both horizontally and vertically. Here, conformance to Clausewitz’s trinity becomes paramount.
Impact of the Change on India-Pakistan Relations
There has to be a paradigm shift in thinking about the role of paradigms in war. The current scenario where the character of war has gone virtual more than physical may especially prove catastrophic between Pakistan and India since incapacitating the adversary in their case may cast serious negative imprints on strategic decision-making.
The nuclear neighbors are arch-rivals and have had wars as well as skirmishes throughout their history post-independence. There are still serious issues pending between both which have the potential to instigate conflict situations at any time. In order to save more than a billion souls in South Asia, it is incumbent upon the leadership from both sides to seriously review this situation and take appropriate measures.
Not only the focus on changing the character of war is to be accorded due diligence but there is a serious requirement of engagement from both sides in this domain to avoid any inadvertent miscalculation. Confidence-building measures to address these issues therefore should be a serious consideration. This necessity should not be overwhelmed by the differences and issues between both, instead, they need to be forthcoming in agreeing upon factors to avoid such eventuality from either side. After all, there has to be a paradigm shift in thinking about the role of paradigms in war.
This piece was originally published in Defence Journal.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please check the Submissions page.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
Reema Shaukat is a communication strategist at the Institute of Regional Studies, Islamabad, and can be reached at [email protected].