The word “strategic” is used indiscriminately before any political visit, talks or deal

Rear admiral Raja Menon retd

MODERN military and strategic discourse is increasingly burdened by a creeping affliction: the substitution of clear thought with fashionable jargon. What masquerades as innovation is often little more than repackaging of long-understood principles in language designed to impress rather than illuminate. The result is not intellectual progress, but intellectual fog.

Take the term “layered defence.” It is now presented as if it were a novel doctrinal breakthrough. But when, in the history of warfare, has defence ever not been layered? From the Roman legions with their successive lines of infantry, to medieval fortifications with moats, walls and inner keeps, to the elastic defence-in-depth of the Second World War — layering has always been intrinsic to survival.

It is not innovation; it is amnesia. Similarly, “multi-domain operations” is offered as a revolutionary concept integrating land, sea, air, cyber and space. Yet war has always been fought across multiple domains. The Blitzkrieg combined armour, artillery, infantry and airpower in tightly coordinated operations. Naval warfare has long depended on intelligence, logistics and air cover.

Then there is “cyber warfare,” often described as an entirely new frontier. While the tools are undoubtedly modern, the underlying concept — penetrating, disrupting and manipulating the enemy’s information systems — is not.

During the Second World War, the Allied Ultra programme broke German codes, providing decisive intelligence that shaped operations across theatres. A favourite seems to be the new term, “cognitive warfare”. Have we forgotten the massive success of the BBC in retaining Britain’s soft power for decades after its economic decline, or the long-drawn success of the Russian and East European VOA (Voice of America) radio broadcasts that kept the idea of freedom alive and contributed to the fall of the Berlin Wall?

A favourite is “hybrid warfare”, the ultimate example of military jargon which is a catchword for using everything including the kitchen sink. This term replaced what has always been diplomatic and foreign intelligence meddling and used to describe any protest or fake news on X (Twitter) . But the more sophisticated would shun “hybrid warfare” and use “grey zone warfare” that would perplex the audience even more. The term “dropping bombs” is considered crass and has been replaced with “kinetic warfare”, a term which would dazzle most civilian audiences when it actually means “breaking things”.

Bureaucracies reward what looks like new thinking, or at least the appearance of it. New terminology creates the impression of fresh thinking, justifying financial outlays, reorganisations and doctrinal publications. It also signals apparent agreement with global trends, particularly those emanating from the US, where defence establishments are prolific producers of jargon.

Complex terminology creates an aura of expertise that discourages scrutiny. A good example is the sly answer to questions of the treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo, to which the answer was — “enhanced interrogation”. Got it? Jargon distances strategic discourse from both historical understanding and common sense.

If policymakers believe they are confronting entirely new forms of warfare, they may neglect the enduring principles that govern conflict: logistics, morale, leadership and adaptability. Worse, they may overestimate the transformative impact of technology

while underestimating the resilience of adversaries. Another one that comes to mind is the alleged invention of a new strategy by China called “A2AD” against the maritime dominance of the US in the West Pacific; it turns out to be a rewording of “sea denial”, an old, well-established concept.

India, in particular, should be wary of using jargon as a substitute for rigorous thinking uncritically. Its strategic environment demands clarity, not fashion. The country has repeatedly suffered from strategic surprise — not because it lacked jargon, but because it misread emerging world scenarios. Clear thinking must also be rooted in history.

This is not an argument against innovation. New technologies — especially in cyber and space — require adaptation. But adaptation must be grounded in continuity. The past does not become irrelevant simply because the vocabulary changes. There must be a clear articulation of what is new; otherwise, it only causes confusion upwards and downwards. Quite possibly, other fields such as economics and diplomacy may be indulging in the same thing.

One term comes to mind to describe the tumult going on in the world where the established order has been upended, ideas of what constitutes power are fuzzy and long-established alliances are breaking. There is a suggestion that all this somehow becomes crystal clear if one says that the world has become “multipolar”. So, that is solved.

Words should clarify, not conceal. In the end, the test of any concept is not how impressive it sounds, but whether it sharpens judgment. Jargon that merely rebrands the obvious does the opposite. It dulls the mind, obscures the past and leaves us less prepared for the future. The political and business world is not immune to this disease either. Here, the most misused word is “strategic”, used indiscriminately before any political visit, deal, agreement or talks, as with any new commercial investment, whether it is in nuclear reactors or cosmetics.

Why, then, does this jargon proliferate? Part of the answer lies in institutional incentives. Bureaucracies reward novelty, or at least the appearance of it. New terminology creates the impression of fresh thinking, justifying budgets, reorganisation and doctrinal publications. It also signals alignment with global trends, particularly those emanating from the US.