‘Operation Sindoor' was not about occupation or regime change, but achieving strategic success, says John Spencer

A day after he hailed ‘Operation Sindoor’ as "a decisive victory in modern warfare", former US army officer John W Spencer on Thursday said that India’s limited military operation was executed for achieving specific objectives and was not about occupation or regime change.

Responding to critics who argue India should have gone further, he asserted that India’s goal was not maximalist warfare but strategic success.

Operation Sindoor was not about occupation or regime change. It was limited war executed for specific objectives. Critics who argue India should have gone further miss the point. Strategic success isn’t about the scale of destruction—it’s about achieving the desired political… https://t.co/YvxCjaJJRs

— John Spencer (@SpencerGuard) May 14, 2025

“Operation Sindoor was not about occupation or regime change. It was limited war executed for specific objectives. Critics who argue India should have gone further miss the point. Strategic success isn’t about the scale of destruction — it’s about achieving the desired political effect,” Spencer posted on X.

He said India’s restraint cannot be seen as a weakness but it’s maturity.

“It imposed costs, redefined thresholds, and retained escalation dominance. India didn’t just respond to an attack. It changed the strategic equation,” added the former US officer.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

‘The cries of this widow will echo’: In first public remarks, Erika Kirk warns Charlie’s killers they’ve ‘unleashed a fire’

Trump urges Nato to back sanctions on Russia, calls for 50–100% tariffs on China

On Wednesday, in a lengthy post on X, Spencer termed India’s ‘Operation Sindoor’ against Pakistan “a decisive victory in modern warfare” and said that the country has not yet declared the operation complete.

He also said the new India hits back, while the India back in 2008 absorbed attacks and waited.

Spencer, who is also a researcher of urban warfare and an author, said India achieved a “massive victory" in its operation against Pakistan.

“India has not declared Operation Sindoor completely over. What exists now is a sensitive halt in operations—some may call it a ceasefire, but military leaders have deliberately avoided that word. From a warfighting perspective, this is not merely a pause; it is a strategic hold following a rare and unambiguous military victory," Spencer wrote on on X.

“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," he added.

Referencing the Pahalgam terror attack, which claimed the lives of 26 innocent tourists on April 22, Spencer mentioned that the responsibility of the attack was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).

“India was attacked. On April 22, 2025, 26 Indian civilians, mostly Hindu tourists, were massacred in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir. The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), claimed responsibility. As has been the case for decades, the group is backed by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)," Spencer wrote on X.

“But unlike previous attacks, this time India didn’t wait. It didn’t appeal for international mediation or issue a diplomatic demarche. It launched warplanes. On May 7, India initiated Operation Sindoor, a swift and precisely calibrated military campaign. The Indian Air Force struck nine terrorist infrastructure targets inside Pakistan, including headquarters and operational hubs for Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. The message was clear: terror attacks launched from Pakistani soil will now be treated as acts of war," he added.

Spencer also hailed Prime Minister Narendra Modi and mentioned how he made firm that India would not tolerate any nuclear blackmail.

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi made the new doctrine unmistakable: “India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail. India will strike precisely and decisively at the terrorist hideouts developing under the cover of nuclear blackmail."

More than a retaliation, this was the unveiling of a strategic doctrine. As Modi said, “Terror and talks can’t go together. Water and blood can’t flow together."," he wrote.

Meanwhile, the scale of damage inflicted by Indian forces on terrorist camps and Pakistani airbases prompted a shift in coverage by major Western media outlets, many of which had initially downplayed the April 22 attack.

Outlets that previously referred to the perpetrators as mere “gunmen” or “militants”, avoiding the label of “terrorist”, were compelled to take notice after India’s precision strikes delivered significant blows deep inside Pakistan — without crossing the Line of Control or the International Border.

The effectiveness and restraint of the operation forced a recalibration of international narratives.

After the April 22 Pahalgam attack, major Western outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post failed to play up critical details, including that the victims at Baisaran meadows were killed after being identified as Hindus.

Their headlines read, ‘At least 24 tourists gunned down by militants in Kashmir’ and ‘Gunmen launch rare attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, respectively.

However, the precision and scale of Operation Sindoor, launched on May 7 and paused on May 10 after Pakistan reportedly sought a ceasefire, forced a shift in tone.

The New York Times acknowledged India had a “clear edge” in targeting Pakistani military sites.

“The four-day military clash between India and Pakistan was the most expansive fighting in half a century between the two nuclear-armed countries. As both sides used drones and missiles to test each other’s air defences and hit military facilities, they claimed to inflict severe damage,” the NYT reported.

The report also noted that while India’s attacks were “widespread,” the damage was more contained than publicly claimed and was largely limited to Pakistani military facilities.

The New York Times further stated that strikes by both India and Pakistan were “precisely targeted.”

“Where India appears to have had a clear edge is in its targeting of Pakistan’s military facilities and airfields, as the latter stretch of fighting shifted from symbolic strikes and shows of force to attacks on each other’s defence capabilities,” the report added.

The Indian armed forces said that a precise strike targeted an aircraft hangar at the Bholari air base. Supporting this, The New York Times reported, “The visuals showed clear damage to what looks like a hangar.”

Among the most sensitive targets hit by India was the Nur Khan air base, located close to both the Pakistani Army’s headquarters and the Prime Minister’s office.

“Perhaps the most sensitive military target that India struck,” the report said. The base is also situated near a key Pakistani military division responsible for overseeing the country’s nuclear command.

Satellite imagery revealed damage to runways and other facilities India claimed to have targeted. The New York Times cited Pakistan’s May 10 notice declaring the runway at Rahim Yar Khan air base non-operational as further evidence of Indian strikes.

The report also highlighted the limited visibility of Pakistani retaliatory damage.

“Satellite images of the sites Pakistan claimed to have hit are limited, and so far do not clearly show damage caused by Pakistani strikes even at bases where there was corroborating evidence of some military action,” the report said.

While Pakistani officials claimed to have “destroyed” India’s Udhampur air base, the report contradicted this, saying that “an image from May 12 does not appear to show damage.”

The Washington Post reported strikes damaged “at least six airfields,” citing satellite analysis that revealed destruction across runways, hangars, and control facilities — some as deep as 100 miles inside Pakistan.

Experts quoted by The Washington Post described Operation Sindoor as “the most significant attacks of their kind in decades of simmering conflict.”

It also cited King’s College London’s Walter Ladwig, calling the four-day assault “the most extensive Indian air attacks on Pakistani military infrastructure since the 1971 war.”

William Goodhind, a geospatial analyst, noted the strikes aimed to “severely degrade Pakistan’s offensive and defensive air capabilities.”

At Nur Khan airbase near Islamabad — Pakistan’s central military transport hub — The Washington Post confirmed two mobile control centers were destroyed. The base’s proximity to Pakistan’s nuclear command made the strike particularly significant.

Airbases at Bholari and Shahbaz also suffered heavy damage. “A large hole nearly 60 feet wide is visible in the roof of a hangar at Bholari, which experts said was consistent with a missile impact,” The Washington Post reported.

Indian officials, however, said that 11 Pakistani airbases were targeted in total.

With inputs from agencies