Equal Capability and Intent Is Nice, but Not Necessary

I am a bit disturbed by the latest comments of Indian Chairman of Chiefs of Staff Committee and Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta. I do not subscribe to the strategic thinking being discussed here.

Admitting that India neither has the “capability nor the intention” to match China’s military strength, Chairman of Chiefs of Staff Committee and Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta said here today that “common sense dictates” that India needs to cooperate with China rather than confront it.

“In military terms, both conventional and non-conventional, we neither have the capability nor the intention to match China, force for force. These are indeed sobering thoughts and therefore our strategy to deal with China would need to be in consonance with these realities,” Mehta said, delivering an address on National Security Challenges organized by the National Maritime Foundation.

In his address, perhaps his last in public as Navy chief — he retires month-end — Mehta said: “Common sense dictates that cooperation with China would be preferable to competition or conflict, as it would be foolhardy to compare India and China as equals...Whether in terms of GDP, defence spending or any other economic, social or development parameter, the gap between the two is just too wide to bridge and getting wider by the day,” the officer said.

You can read the entire article, but you will find the line of thought does not deviate from the stated course of what Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta is suggesting are 'sobering thoughts.' I am not in agreement with the strategic thinking of the Indian military in this recommended approach to China.

Military asymmetry in interstate relations does not mean the weaker side must bend to the dictates of the stronger, nor should the weaker state seek to propitiate it. Wise strategy coupled with good diplomacy is the art of offsetting or neutralizing military or economic power imbalance with a stronger state. Just because China is more powerful militarily does not mean India must be subservient to the demands of China, and if someone in India truly believes that line of thinking, how do they explain the relationship between Pakistan and India, where India is clearly more powerful? Surely Pakistan should be bowing to India, right?

Hardly...

Cooperation may indeed be the best path for India as it relates to China, but not because China is stronger militarily or economically or as some admission that war is bad. No shit war sucks - thanks for the memo, but one doesn't need to jump straight into military confrontation simply because one is engaged in competition or even disagreement, and by no means does that line of thought mean submit into cooperation as a form of capitulation. Cooperation by definition should be mutually beneficial, and I fail to see how cooperation as a way to avoid any confrontation at all, as expressed by Admiral Sureesh Mehta, is forwarding Indian interests, particularly in the context of standing up against Chinese territorial claims of properties currently held by India.

Later in the speech Admiral Mehta gets it right when suggesting deterrence and closing military gaps are effective ways to counter Chinese moves to grow a footprint in the Indian Ocean, but with neighbors like Pakistan there is only so much one can expect to accomplish alone. What the strategic thinking outlined by Admiral Mehta is missing though is an end to strategy, because the only objective in the strategic thinking reported in the media is the avoidance, at virtually any cost btw, of confrontation. India may not get that choice, so India's strategy must define the ways that will manage confrontation should such a confrontation takes place.

If equal "capability and intent" were conditional requirements for defeating a stronger opponent, then there would be no such thing as a theory of war, much less the practice of diplomacy.