![](https://bharatshakti.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/LT-BSI-Defence.gif")
Editor’s Note
This piece examines how Clausewitz’s concept of the “fog of war” persists in the era of AI, cyber warfare, and electronic deception, with Operation Sindoor serving as a striking example. It argues that technology, far from clearing the fog, often deepens the chaos of modern battlefields.
‘The more things change, the more they remain the same’ – a truism of this statement in modern wars is absolute when we revert to Clausewitz’s definition of the nature of war. While there has been an upsurge of pseudo-scholars and armchair strategists who seek TRP ratings/responses on social media by debunking Clausewitz and his dictum that ‘war is a chameleon, the nature remains constant but character changes’, Clausewitz the most quoted and least read military theorist had articulated the permanence of nature of war predicated on fog of war, friction in war, human will and inherent violence.
The concept of the “fog of war,” famously articulated by Carl von Clausewitz, captures the inherent uncertainty, ambiguity and confusion that characterise warfare. War fosters an environment where intuition and adaptability are as crucial as planning, challenging the assumption that technological advancements alone can provide clarity or control amidst the chaos. The interplay of human psychology, environmental unpredictability, and evolving adversarial tactics constantly shifts the dynamic, leading to outcomes that defy conventional expectations.
Historically, this fog arises from the imperfect, incomplete and often contradictory information available to commanders and decision-makers on the battlefield. Frederick the Great, as cited by Clausewitz, remarked that the greatest difficulty in war is knowing ‘what is on the other side of the hill‘. Techno-warriors believed that the introduction of satellites, surveillance drones, cyber capabilities, and artificial intelligence would diminish the fog of war, allowing for clearer understanding and precision in combat operations. However, paradoxically, the rapid advancement of technology has often deepened the fog rather than dispelling it.
The introduction of radio communication during World War II was intended to dissipate the fog of war, but instead, it created a denser fog of war. Radio enabled rapid dissemination of battlefield reports, but these often arrived simultaneously from multiple, sometimes unverified, sources. Commanders were inundated with messages, many of which were contradictory, outdated, or misinterpreted, worsening the clarity of the battlefield picture. Fog of war deepens not just in the absence of information, but in a flood of unreliable information and data. Something, Collin Powell called, ‘paralysis by analysis’.
The radio set example is used to highlight the incremental paralysis that occurs with the present technological leap, where the half-life of knowledge and technology has been attenuated manifold.
Clausewitz described war as an environment dominated by friction, chance and uncertainty. The fog of war stems from several factors: the chaos of combat, unreliable intelligence, human error, psychological stress and the unpredictability of adversary actions. In this environment, commanders must make critical decisions with incomplete or misleading information, often under severe time constraints. Yet, each technological leap has introduced new layers of complexity that can obscure rather than clarify the battlefield picture.
One of the primary ways in which technology contributes to the modern fog of war is through information overload. Today’s battlefields are saturated with data from satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), sensors, social media and cyber intelligence.
In theory, this abundance of information should provide commanders with a comprehensive understanding of the operational environment. In practice, however, the sheer volume of data can overwhelm decision-makers. When faced with terabytes of incoming information, commanders may struggle to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant data. This cognitive overload can slow decision-making or cause critical details to be drowned out by noise. In high-pressure combat situations, delayed or faulty decisions can prove disastrous.
Thus, the technological capacity to gather data has far outpaced the human and organisational capacity to process, interpret and act on it effectively.
In the face of overwhelming information and uncertainty, commanders often delay decisions while awaiting the elusive last piece of confirming intelligence, a tendency known as ‘decision deferral‘ that can paralyse operations. This delay is sometimes compounded by the practice of ‘delegating decisions upward‘, under the assumption that senior leaders possess superior situational awareness.
However, this deferral often results in missed opportunities, slower response times, and the erosion of subordinate initiative, particularly in fast-moving operational environments; a classic manifestation of the fog of war.
Modern domains of warfare, such as cyber, cognitive, and electronic, are vectors of the fog of war. Cyberattacks on a military’s command and control systems can generate false information, paralyse decision-making, or lead to fratricide (friendly fire incidents). The hidden nature of cyber warfare exacerbates decision paralysis, as commanders cannot easily discern whether an operational failure is due to enemy interference, technical malfunction, or internal error. Electronic warfare (EW) technologies enable forces to jam, spoof or deceive enemy sensors and communications.
This capability further thickens the fog of war by creating false images of the battlefield, thereby complicating the situation. For instance, electronic decoys can simulate non-existent forces, misleading the adversary, in what may be hailed as a masterclass in electronic warfare. India reportedly used its Rafale aircraft’s advanced X-Guard decoy system to fool Pakistan into believing it had shot down a Rafale fighter jet during Operation Sindoor.
In the contemporary information environment, media, both traditional and social, have become a potent tool that can exacerbate the fog of war. Real-time reporting, live streaming and viral social media posts can rapidly disseminate both accurate information and deliberate misinformation.
Today, with the ubiquity of smartphones, every citizen can inadvertently or intentionally contribute to the fog of war, capturing and broadcasting fragmented, misleading, or manipulated images of conflict. This democratisation of information production creates an environment where narratives can be shaped and reshaped in moments, sowing confusion not only among the public but also within military command structures.
The flood of unverified content complicates intelligence analysis, operational security, and decision-making, especially when adversaries weaponise social media to conduct information operations and psychological warfare.
Additionally, advancements in artificial intelligence and deepfake technology have introduced new methods of deception. Adversaries can deploy synthetic media to create fake audio, video or imagery, undermining trust in intelligence sources and complicating the decision-making process. No matter how advanced technology becomes, the human element remains central to warfare.
Another cognitive trap in military decision-making is ‘confirmation bias’, where commanders unconsciously seek or interpret information that aligns with their expectations or operational plans, while dismissing contrary evidence. It can lead to flawed assessments, particularly in intelligence analysis and threat evaluation.
Under the stress and complexity of modern warfare, such confirmation bias can reinforce existing misconceptions, leading to strategic surprise or operational failure. Stress, fatigue and emotional reactions influence how individuals interpret information and make decisions. Technology does not eliminate these human factors; in some cases, it exacerbates them. For example, overreliance on technological systems can create a false sense of certainty or infallibility.
This “automation bias” can lead commanders to trust flawed data or algorithms without sufficient scepticism. Conversely, information overload can trigger cognitive shutdown, where decision-makers default to familiar patterns or heuristics rather than critically analysing the situation.
The promise of technology to pierce the fog of war remains partially fulfilled. While advancements in sensors, communications, and data analytics have enhanced situational awareness, they have also introduced new uncertainties, vulnerabilities, and complexities. The paradox is that the more information and tools we acquire, the more challenging it becomes to see clearly through the fog.
Military leaders must recognise that no technology can eliminate the fundamental nature of war: its fog, uncertainty and human dimensions. Instead, success in modern warfare depends on balancing technological capabilities with human judgment, adaptability and resilience. Only by preparing for the fog of war, not just trying to eliminate it, can armed forces hope to navigate the uncertainties of 21st-century conflict. Returning to Clausewitz’s idea that the nature of war is constant, it has been proven beyond doubt that the fog of war is here to stay.
Brig Harsh Vardhan Singh, VSM
