Understanding the Influence of Narratives in Modern Warfare: Lessons from Major Conflicts

Techniques of warfare have evolved and are no longer confined to battlefields and the use of military force. The landscape has shifted to incorporate cybersecurity, the media (including contemporary and social media), and narrative building, along with other major global threats, such as environmental and economic threats. Information and the manipulation of human behaviour hold crucial importance in contemporary warfare.

Illustration by The Geostrata

With the increasing interconnectedness within nations and individuals, information is much more easily accessible than it was earlier. And thus, it is much easier to frame the narrative of people with this information within no time, and it is used as a tool in warfare.

DEFINING NARRATIVES AND WARFARE

Defining a war starts with the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, who shaped the initial understanding of war and strategy in the 19^th century. Clausewitz’s ideology suggests, “war is an organised violence waged by regular armed forces of nation states against each other according to established rules during a delineated period, ending in a negotiated peace settlement.”

Later in 1989, William Lind introduced the concepts of modern and Fourth Generation Warfare in his article, stating that conventional and tactical warfare are obsolete in the contemporary dynamics.

Since then, many writers and thinkers have emphasised the changing nature of warfare. However, this does not exclude the role of the military and use of force in modern warfare, only that the role of civilians and civilian instruments would be more significant.

Here is where narratives and information warfare become relevant. In the context of conflicts, narratives play a huge role in framing perceptions, justifying actions, and imposing ideologies. Narratives are stories, either spoken, written, or depicted, that frame one’s ideology or identity. They are crucial for communication and understanding, as they help individuals understand any event, convey beliefs, or shape identities.

During a conflict, many actors are responsible for framing a narrative, which often plays a significant role in escalating any conflict. Narratives create a sense of “us vs them”, contributing to heightened tensions and escalation. Further, narrative formation can also be used to justify violent actions of any state, for example, how the US media depicted its actions in different war zones like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Narrative formation also clarifies the beliefs of any faction of the conflict. For instance, in the context of the Israel-Hamas war, each side has its own belief, ideology, and understanding narrated differently by different media groups. This is used as a tool to establish a certain propaganda and often leads to misinformation.

Prolonged narrative building of a certain ideology leads to a huge divide among groups and people with different ideologies, which makes the solution of a conflict more complex and challenging.

CASE STUDIES ON NARRATIVE WARFARE IN CONTEMPORARY CONFLICTS: OPERATION SINDOOR

India faced a brutal terrorist attack on 22^nd April in the Jammu and Kashmir region, which was responded to by ‘Operation Sindoor’ by the Indian Army to destroy the terror bases responsible for the attack. However, after repeated clarification, right after the response on 7^th May, that the response was focused, measured, and non-escalatory, and only the terror targets in Pakistan and PoK were hit, the Pakistan military decided to retaliate. The exchange of missiles and drones from both sides lasted for four days.

The conflict also led to fierce 2-way information warfare. India faced the attack of targeted and aggressive propaganda from the Pakistani media, army, and leadership. Buying into Pakistan’s narrative, full of misinformation and lies, the global media was less interested in India’s strategic efficiency and more in Pakistan’s resilience and diplomatic gains.

Repeated press briefings of the Indian Army and MEA, with proven evidence of satellite images of targeted strikes on the terrorist infrastructure, were not enough, and the international media decided to represent Pakistani leadership statements backed by social media evidence.

Thus, narratives are very crucial in contemporary times. Despite efficient and precise strikes, India largely lost the narrative war at the global stage. However, under Operation Sindoor, India had sent seven all-party delegations that visited 33 key partner countries and the UN Security Council over two weeks to present India’s stance on cross-border terrorism.

ISRAEL-HAMAS CONFLICT

The recent conflict escalated with the Hamas rebels capturing around 250 Israeli hostages. But the Israel-Hamas or Israel-Palestine conflict started right after the establishment of Israel in 1948. Since then, the region has witnessed several wars and the formation of different narratives. There is a sharp divide between the media’s depiction of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

When the recent conflict started, some outlets portrayed Israel as the victim of terrorism, and thus, Israel rightfully responded to the attack by massively bombing Gaza to force the release of hostages by Hamas. Others centre the conflict as a ground for the massive humanitarian toll in Gaza.

Within this conflict, a certain narrative war has started shifting the blame onto each other. Critics argue that the amount of bombardment and the limit of aid sent to Gaza are intended to force the Palestinians to leave the territory. Another claims that Hamas is using the citizens of Palestine as a civilian cover and diverting the aid, causing a huge corruption crisis to buy arms. Both narratives are complicating the entire conflict, bringing it to a standstill with no resolution so far.

THE US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN REGIONAL CONFLICTS

Narratives help the governments to back their actions, often military actions, in the name of morality and strategic necessity. The 1955-1975 Vietnam War was portrayed as a retaliatory action against the spread of communism. This narrative made Americans believe that the intervention was necessary and that the war would not last long. Similarly, after the attack of 9/11, the US engaged in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan.

For twenty years, the US was able to keep the Taliban away from holding power and liberating the women of Afghanistan from the Taliban’s authoritative regime.

The media narrative shifted from the ‘War Against Terrorism’, totally neglecting the long duration of the war and the severe casualties caused during this period. During the 2003 Iraq war, the action was justified due to the claims of Nuclear Weapons present in Iraq, under Saddam’s regime. However, after the Iraqi government was toppled, no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found.

CONCLUSION

Analysing narratives involves a deep examination of the root cause, beneficiaries, underlying themes, ideologies, and strategies involved in setting those narratives. The core intent must be to decode the implicit meanings and biases involved. While interpreting a certain narrative, language patterns, historical, cultural, and social contexts, ideologies, stereotypes, authorities, and agendas must be analysed first.

However, it is the crucial responsibility of the media, leadership, and individuals to provide and accept correct information. Information plays a crucial role in forming public opinions and societal discourse. The media and leaders have a major responsibility to report and disseminate factually correct information concerning ethics and diverse representation.

But, as individuals, the consumption of correct information is also very important. Evaluating and verifying the information provided to us is our moral responsibility, as the war is not only fought on the battlefields with arms, but also on social media with our awareness.

---

BY NEHAL SHARMA

STRATEGIC STUDIES CENTRE

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com