'Restraint is not weakness': US warfare expert lauds India's response to Pakistan, says critics misunderstood sound strategy

Operation Sindoor, India’s high-precision military response to the Pahalgam terror attack, has drawn international appreciation, not just for its scale but also for its strategic restraint. Among the most closely watched assessments comes from John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute, who called the operation a “new doctrine for India.”

In a detailed analysis shared on X, he dissected India’s approach, highlighting how the operation successfully redefined red lines, showcased military credibility, and asserted sovereign strategic independence.

These are the top things Spencer noted:

- A new red line drawn: “Terror attacks launched from Pakistani territory will now be treated as acts of war. That threshold has been redefined—and enforced,” Spencer wrote, adding that India’s response established a clear deterrence framework going forward.

- He also mentioned how India showcased both its offensive and defensive capabilities, especially its indigenous platforms under real-time combat conditions. “India showcased its offensive and defensive capabilities, particularly the performance of indigenous platforms under live combat conditions,” he said.

- Emphasising the balance struck between force and restraint, Spencer remarked, “Pakistan escalated with drone swarms and cross-border fire. India struck back harder, but stopped short of general war. That is textbook deterrence: calibrated, controlled, and credible.”

- Spencer underlined that India managed the crisis on its own terms without international mediation or support, “India managed the crisis entirely through its own military and diplomatic mechanisms. It neither asked for nor relied on outside assistance. This is a sovereign doctrine—enforced on sovereign terms.”

Taking aim at critics calling for deeper incursions or regime change in Pakistan, Spencer cautioned against impulsive escalation. “Critics who believe India should have conducted a more massive military operation—calling for deep strikes, occupation of territory, or regime change, misunderstand what sound strategy demands.”

Perhaps his most powerful statement came in defence of India's strategic restraint, “This is not unlimited war. It is limited war, conducted for limited but vital aims: to re-establish deterrence, impose costs on Pakistan’s terror infrastructure, and redefine the rules of engagement between the two nuclear-armed nations.”
“Restraint in this context is not weakness—it is discipline in pursuit of strategic clarity.”