Air Power vs Ground Forces: Limits of Strikes in Modern Warfare

Escalating US–Israel strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military targets have revived the debate on whether air power alone can achieve strategic objectives without ground intervention.

The Appeal and Limitations of Air Power

• Optics and Punishment: Air strikes (e.g., Israel–US operations, India’s response post-Pulwama) provide visible, immediate proof of action to domestic and global audiences, serving as tools of signalling, punishment, and deterrence.
• Reduced Risk: They minimise risk to personnel compared to ground operations, avoiding direct troop exposure, casualties, or capture in hostile territory.
• The Control Gap: However, air power alone cannot secure territory or ensure regime change.
  • As military expert T.R. Fehrenbach noted, “boots on the ground” are always superior to “bombs in the sky” because you cannot control a territory you have merely turned to ash.

Narrative Warfare

• Perception Management: Modern air strikes are followed by a “war of narratives,” where competing claims seek to shape public opinion.
  • Example: After the 2019 Balakot strikes, Pakistan downplayed damage, compelling India to present evidence of targeting terrorist infrastructure.
• Information Battle: In contemporary conflicts (e.g., the Russia–Ukraine war), both sides strategically use images, videos, and official statements to amplify or downplay the impact of aerial or drone strikes, making the perception of damage as crucial as the actual military outcome.

The Necessity of Contact Warfare

• The Kargil Example: During the Kargil War, the Air Force’s Mirage 2000 strikes disrupted enemy supply lines, but decisive victory came only when infantry physically scaled high-altitude peaks under extreme conditions to evict infiltrators.
• Ground Presence as the Metric of Success: In the Russia–Ukraine war, despite extensive drone and aerial warfare, real strategic gains are measured by territorial control achieved through ground forces capturing and holding villages.

Strategic Focus and Soldier Needs

• Expertise Segregation: There is a concern that different military branches are straying from their core competencies due to the glamorization of hardware
  • While the Air Force should focus on missiles and strikes, the Navy should focus on submarines and sea lanes rather than just seeking aircraft carriers.
• Soldier-Centric Ecosystem: While governments invest heavily in high-end assets such as Rafale jets, the basic needs of the infantry are often neglected. To win ground wars, soldiers require:
  • Latest rifles and ammunition, Night-vision goggles and reliable radio communication, Mine-protected vehicles and counter-drone systems, Software tools to process battlefield data quickly, etc.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Conclusion

Wars are ultimately decided by forces that capture and hold territory, and while air power can prepare the ground, only infantry can secure final victory.

DOWNLOAD PDF