Operation Sindoor: A Model of Modern Warfare, Says Expert John Spencer:

Suspense crime, Digital Desk : The way India handled the April 22 Pahalgam attack in operation Sindoor was more than strategically successful. For warfare specialist John Spencer, it was a “doctrinal execution under live fire.” As he analyzed on X, India achieved what he classified as “decisive victory in modern warfare” through disciplined military strategy.

https://t.co/bMCcwM7EX9
— John Spencer (@SpencerGuard) May 14, 2025

What Made Operation Sindoor Stand Out

Unlike conflicts without end which often leads to political stalemate, Operation Sindoor was executed in a meticulous manner. Spencer stressed how in a world of recurring violence and persistent wars, “Sindoor” is a “model of limited war with defined ends, matching methods, and mastery over everything.”

Comparison: 2008 and 2025

Spencer noted the stark difference in how India responded to the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks and how it unfolded in 2025. In 2008, he noted India suffered the attacks and did not strike back. In contrast, the 2025 response was “immediate, precise, and clear,” showing India’s newfound strength in its defense strategy.

New Military Doctrine and Controlled Ceasefire

The expert has equally praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s new defence doctrine for its decisiveness and initiative. With respect to the ceasefire, Spencer noted the Indian military expression “stoppage of firing”—a phrase that was selected specifically to project intent from strategy and not surrender.

Ceasefire Seen as a Tactical Pause

Spencer explained that the present ‘pause’ does not indicate the end of Operation Sindoor. “The operation is not over—it is paused. India still holds the initiative,” he stated. If need be, the military is willing to go back to counteroffensive mode, highlighting the precise operational design.

Focus on Objectives, Not Escalation

The critics who India should have done more argue more miss the strategic intent, Spencer reasoned. He reiterated that the objective was not occupation or changing the government but achieving clearly defined limited goals. “Success in strategy,” he wrote, “is not measured by destruction but by political outcomes.”