NEW DELHI: John Spencer , one of the world’s foremost authorities on modern combat, has offered a stark and unqualified assessment of India's Operation Sindoor .
“After just four days of calibrated military action, it is objectively conclusive: India achieved a massive victory. Operation Sindoor met and exceeded its strategic aims—destroying terrorist infrastructure , demonstrating military superiority, restoring deterrence, and unveiling a new national security doctrine. This was not symbolic force. It was decisive power, clearly applied,” Spencer wrote in a post on X.
A West Point scholar, author of Understanding Urban Warfare, and executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute, Spencer is known for his analytical rigor. His unequivocal language-"objectively conclusive," "decisive power"-carried weight beyond social media, resonating in strategic circles far beyond South Asia.
His statement also cuts to the core of what Operation Sindoor represents: Not just retaliation, but redefinition. India’s airstrikes, executed with surgical precision on terror infrastructure inside Pakistan, marked the culmination of a doctrinal evolution that had been hinted at for years but never made explicit-until now.
India’s strategic transformation
Operation Sindoor followed a brutal April 22 massacre in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, where 26 civilians were killed in an attack claimed by The Resistance Front, a Lashkar-e-Taiba offshoot. Unlike past incidents, New Delhi didn’t issue diplomatic warnings or seek multilateral condemnation. Instead, it launched warplanes, Spencer said in his post.
Over four tightly coordinated days beginning May 7, India carried out nine deep-penetration strikes, neutralized a retaliatory drone swarm from Pakistan, and hit six military airbases and UAV command hubs. In parallel, India’s armed forces showcased their ability to defend airspace, deploy indigenous weapons systems, and apply multi-domain capabilities, including electronic and cyber warfare.
What followed wasn’t a ceasefire. It was, in the words of Indian military officials, a “strategic pause”- an operational halt, not a concession.
This measured yet forceful posture is precisely what Spencer highlighted. His post reflects a growing recognition among security experts: India is no longer content with reactive diplomacy. It is building a military doctrine rooted in calibrated force, autonomous escalation control, and refusal to be coerced by nuclear threats.
Strategic objectives achieved
As per Spencer, Operation Sindoor was not a war of conquest or vengeance but a limited campaign with clear objectives, all of which were met:
A New Red Line: India established that terrorist attacks from Pakistani soil will be treated as acts of war, setting a precedent for future responses.
India’s message, backed by action, is that terror attacks backed by state actors will be treated as acts of war. As PM Modi said, “Terror and talks can’t go together. Water and blood can’t flow together.”
Military superiority: India’s ability to strike terrorist and military targets at will, while neutralizing Pakistan’s counterattacks, underscored a stark asymmetry in capabilities.
Restored deterrence: By escalating deliberately and halting short of full-scale war, India signaled its control over the conflict’s pace and scope.
With Operation Sindoor, India unveiled a new national security doctrine, as articulated publicly by Prime Minister Narendra Modi: “India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail. India will strike precisely and decisively at the terrorist hideouts developing under the cover of nuclear blackmail.”
India’s approach combined restraint with resolve. There was no attempt to occupy land or escalate into full-scale war. The goal was to inflict limited but meaningful costs on both non-state actors and the state that enables them-without opening the door to prolonged conflict.
John Spencer understood this-and articulated it plainly: “This was not symbolic force.”
Why it matters globally
India’s campaign comes at a time when democratic states are rethinking deterrence in an age of gray-zone threats and nuclear brinkmanship. As Israel grapples with asymmetrical warfare from Hamas and Hezbollah, as the US pivots to long-term competition with China, and as European states reconsider their military baselines post-Ukraine, the concept of “limited war with defined strategic aims” is gaining salience.
Meanwhile, India’s military briefing to 70 nations the day after the strikes-including the exclusion of China and the demotion of Turkiye was no coincidence. China and Turkiye are major arms suppliers to Pakistan. It signaled that this was not just an event, but a precedent.
The current pause is not an endpoint but a strategic hold. India has made clear that further provocations will trigger renewed action.
“After just four days of calibrated military action, it is objectively conclusive: India achieved a massive victory. Operation Sindoor met and exceeded its strategic aims—destroying terrorist infrastructure , demonstrating military superiority, restoring deterrence, and unveiling a new national security doctrine. This was not symbolic force. It was decisive power, clearly applied,” Spencer wrote in a post on X.
A West Point scholar, author of Understanding Urban Warfare, and executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute, Spencer is known for his analytical rigor. His unequivocal language-"objectively conclusive," "decisive power"-carried weight beyond social media, resonating in strategic circles far beyond South Asia.
His statement also cuts to the core of what Operation Sindoor represents: Not just retaliation, but redefinition. India’s airstrikes, executed with surgical precision on terror infrastructure inside Pakistan, marked the culmination of a doctrinal evolution that had been hinted at for years but never made explicit-until now.
India’s strategic transformation
Operation Sindoor followed a brutal April 22 massacre in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, where 26 civilians were killed in an attack claimed by The Resistance Front, a Lashkar-e-Taiba offshoot. Unlike past incidents, New Delhi didn’t issue diplomatic warnings or seek multilateral condemnation. Instead, it launched warplanes, Spencer said in his post.
Over four tightly coordinated days beginning May 7, India carried out nine deep-penetration strikes, neutralized a retaliatory drone swarm from Pakistan, and hit six military airbases and UAV command hubs. In parallel, India’s armed forces showcased their ability to defend airspace, deploy indigenous weapons systems, and apply multi-domain capabilities, including electronic and cyber warfare.
What followed wasn’t a ceasefire. It was, in the words of Indian military officials, a “strategic pause”- an operational halt, not a concession.
This measured yet forceful posture is precisely what Spencer highlighted. His post reflects a growing recognition among security experts: India is no longer content with reactive diplomacy. It is building a military doctrine rooted in calibrated force, autonomous escalation control, and refusal to be coerced by nuclear threats.
Strategic objectives achieved
As per Spencer, Operation Sindoor was not a war of conquest or vengeance but a limited campaign with clear objectives, all of which were met:
A New Red Line: India established that terrorist attacks from Pakistani soil will be treated as acts of war, setting a precedent for future responses.
India’s message, backed by action, is that terror attacks backed by state actors will be treated as acts of war. As PM Modi said, “Terror and talks can’t go together. Water and blood can’t flow together.”
Military superiority: India’s ability to strike terrorist and military targets at will, while neutralizing Pakistan’s counterattacks, underscored a stark asymmetry in capabilities.
Restored deterrence: By escalating deliberately and halting short of full-scale war, India signaled its control over the conflict’s pace and scope.
With Operation Sindoor, India unveiled a new national security doctrine, as articulated publicly by Prime Minister Narendra Modi: “India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail. India will strike precisely and decisively at the terrorist hideouts developing under the cover of nuclear blackmail.”
India’s approach combined restraint with resolve. There was no attempt to occupy land or escalate into full-scale war. The goal was to inflict limited but meaningful costs on both non-state actors and the state that enables them-without opening the door to prolonged conflict.
John Spencer understood this-and articulated it plainly: “This was not symbolic force.”
Why it matters globally
India’s campaign comes at a time when democratic states are rethinking deterrence in an age of gray-zone threats and nuclear brinkmanship. As Israel grapples with asymmetrical warfare from Hamas and Hezbollah, as the US pivots to long-term competition with China, and as European states reconsider their military baselines post-Ukraine, the concept of “limited war with defined strategic aims” is gaining salience.
Meanwhile, India’s military briefing to 70 nations the day after the strikes-including the exclusion of China and the demotion of Turkiye was no coincidence. China and Turkiye are major arms suppliers to Pakistan. It signaled that this was not just an event, but a precedent.
The current pause is not an endpoint but a strategic hold. India has made clear that further provocations will trigger renewed action.
You may also like
Anderson backs India's 'huge amount of talent' to fill Kohli, Rohit void
J-K: Civilian houses damaged in Nowshera due to shelling by Pakistan, locals demand compensation
India slams China's 'preposterous' attempt to rename places in Arunachal Pradesh
Pakistani reporter accuses PM Modi of blocking peace deal, US official avoids reply
Mary Berry's 'delicious' pasta recipe takes 15 minutes and uses six ingredients
