Opting for Lean and Mean Armies
July 25, 2012 by Team SAISA
Filed under Modernising The Military
The British expect to retain the ability to field only one expeditionary force of a brigade group for protracted periods, and given support by allies, up to a division for non-enduring exigencies. Even if all their wishes were to come true, the British army will more than reflect the shrinking of the British Empire. Contrast the British story to the goings-on in Asia. The Chinese army boasts a strength of 2.3 million. In India, the armed forces are over 1.3 million.
A few years ago, Indians announced the raising of two new divisions for the eastern theatre. Apparently, the way the concept of lean and mean forces is being addressed in continents oceans apart couldn’t be more different.
However, an analysis of parameters to be met before cutting down forces needs to be undertaken before cuts in force levels are applied to the Indian army.
The British do not share land borders with inimical countries. In fact, like all big powers they deploy forces far beyond borders to keep the homeland secure. India faces threats across its borders from Pakistan and China.
Further, these borders run over some of the steepest mountain ranges, where evicting an enemy is extremely costly even with overwhelming fire power. It leads to manning posts all along the line of control supported by fail-proof logistics. Some examples of such terrain and deployment are Siachen and Kargil.
The British philosophy also seems deeply embedded in the guaranteed involvement of Americans, support from NATO and the provisions of EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy. Indians have to fight their own battles — at best, aided in terms of material resources, intelligence sharing, diplomatic support, etc., but definitely not boots on ground.
The British armed forces cater for modernisation in spite of the cuts. The Americans will surely provide full spectrum technology support that they will require to fight in a battlefield spread over land, sea, air, space and cyber domains. The Indian army has huge backlogs even in the areas of replacement of ageing equipment.
Technology enhances combat potential exponentially, while technological superiority over an adversary can degrade the opponent’s potential critically. The Americans bombed Iraq at will, barely losing an aircraft to hostile fire or Iraqi air force, while grinding Saddam’s elite Republican Guards to dust.
The budgets for techno-savvy, agile and flexible forces also need a deliberate look. The U.S. military budget is over $600 billion for its forces and overseas contingencies. The UK spent $59 billion in 2011 while even the opaque Chinese accounting allows an estimated $100 billion in 2011. The Indian treasury coughed up a mere $36 billion in 2011.
Even if Indian forces induct technology aggressively, the nature of threats, terrain and multiplicity of tasks call for a large standing army, albeit technologically matching its prime opponents at least. Insurgencies require boots, as the Americans learnt in Afghanistan. For Indians, with insurgencies being within the country, the tolerance for collateral damage is zero, with boots replacing firepower. Numbers also remain relevant in the Indian context till budgets allow a technology leap.
This article first appeared in Reuters of today.
Related articles
The western countries are relying more and more on technology. If there is a comparison made between Soviet occupation of Afghanistan with that of US led NATO occupation , the vast difference can be attributed to better technology and presence of drone attacks. The best way to understand the role of technology is to compare Americans causalities in Iraq and Vietnam war. In the era of drones, the use of foot soldiers will become lesser prominent. Sadly the discrepancy of budget between India and Britain can be mostly attributed to the monies spent on research and development.
Indian R&D is in dire straits. The recent report Naresh Chandra Task Force has even asked for setting up of new agency to steer research R&D.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Set-up-agency-to-steer-defence-RD-recommends-Naresh-Chandra-Task-Force-on-national-security/articleshow/15133875.cms
Though the role of foot soldiers will remain important and India in the present circumstances will be able to get unending supply of foot soldiers due to developing stage of economy, Indians need to invest in the technology of the future. Indian research in missile technology is laudable but the WMD is a weaponp of strategical defense . These weapons are no deterrent against terrorism. It sounds pathetic that India claims to have technology to make an ICBM like Surya and on the other side Indians look to a country like Czech Republic.
You are right. While India must boost up R&D in latest cutting edge technologies and invest in importing high tech, the emphasis on maintaining boots on the ground in view of large manned borders and insurgencies shall remain critical. While this does not mean F INSAS variety of soldiering but we definitely need tech upgrades urgently in weaponry, communications and long range fires.
As per this article the American state spends a whopping “over $600
billion” to make its forces techno-savvy, agile and flexible in
hostile terrains and very tiresome weathers. What good their towering
material superiority did them in Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq and
Afghanistan?
India does not need nor can do with a lean Army, but it surely needs a mean Army. The geopolitics of SE Asia, South Asia and the Middle East dictate that we can’t down size our Army. Where we need concentrate is :-
Infantry – continues to be the mainstay arm of the army and is the most neglected arm. It’s woefully short of modern weapons and communication equipment. Soldiers uniforms and boots are of poor quality. Living conditions in operational areas are worse than shanty town dwellings. An Indian soldier is not even authorized a mattress, he still has to do with the durrie introduced by the Brits.
We need to develop better and more roads in our operational areas in order to facilitate better movement of men and material. The Chinese bring their roads right under our noses.
Rather than expand armour capabilities we should build up our airmobile capability and forces. Even for mountains we need a preponderance of mobile artillery and precision guided munitions.
Our DRDO is way behind and lacks R&D to provide for our Army. Private sector integration into defence production is a way out. We have to import and not wait 30 years for DRDO to provide us something outdated as the famous or the infamous INSAS rifle.
The Army on its side should be forthrightly blunt about its preparedness to fight a war in real terms. Let not put forth false bravado, bravado works for the last 30 steps to the enemy’s position and not for National Security.