Within the past thirty days, we have witnessed two wars waged to consolidate power and for optics. India tried to invade Pakistan for all the worst reasons imaginable. Shortly after the Pahalgam incident, when India failed to produce a smoking gun — some serious evidence to implicate Pakistan or even apprehend the actual perpetrators who still remain at large -—Indian client analysts in international think tanks, or those appearing on international news channels, tried to present war or strikes deep inside Pakistan as a political imperative.
Modi had to maintain this image of strength, you know. That's why they had to attack Pakistan. And India was confident that, through back-channel pressures, it could compel Pakistan not to retaliate. That plan did not go well, and the overconfident Indian spin masters ended up presenting India as a state that can risk nuclear escalation for one man's image management.
But look at the fallout. Since the early 1990s, India had somehow convinced the West that its cooperation was critical in containing China. As this image grew, it asked for Pakistan's head on a platter. While the West could not do that, it did the next best thing: wealth and unprecedented influence.
India used both to isolate Pakistan. But with one irrational act, it ended up exposing its chinks in the armour. With one strategic blowback, the world now knew India was nowhere near there. It wasn't the West that needed India; it was India that needed the West. Who wants that kind of liability? Everyone will only look at the main asset the country has got: its wealth. All relationships will be transactional from now on. As for Pakistan, three decades of Indian blackmail against the country have ended, and the world is ready to work with Pakistan.
Domestically, Modi's image has been badly shaken. The deep state and the hardliners see him as a liability and are counting the days till they get rid of him. To save face, Modi got the help of Niti Aayog (the body that replaced the Planning Commission), and through some numerical voodoo, the body declared that India's economy had beaten Japan to become the world's fourth-largest economy. Japan has been India's main benefactor. Imagine how these reports played out within the country. The world now knows that the Indian deep state knows that Modi has no value to contribute. Some optics.
The second case is that of Israel's Netanyahu, who has been using political radicalism to offset three major corruption cases against him. As a result, the Israeli polity has constantly radicalised. In the aftermath of October 7's ghastly attacks, instead of prioritising the rescue of the hostages, he declared a forever war, which has exposed the sheer brutality of the regime. Meanwhile, he has used all elements to regularly manipulate political outcomes in the US and other Western democracies. This policy has been the law of diminishing returns.
Only a day ago, Israel carried out a massive attack on Iran. Purpose? Optics again. The global outrage against Israel's genocide in Gaza is growing. In any case, the blood of the Gazans is not enough to indefinitely feed the tiger of political hate he rides. So, why not expand the war? I hold no brief for Iran, but this is too transparent to go unnoticed. Israel called these attacks 'pre-emptive strikes', and the US called them a unilateral action. Remember the days when the US used to carry out "pre-emptive strikes" on Israel's behalf? The law of diminishing returns, indeed. Meanwhile, the cases against Netanyahu are where they were. As Ta-Nehisi Coates once said: Your oppression will not save you.
History has some lessons for these politicians.
Four days after Pearl Harbour, Adolf Hitler made perhaps the most catastrophic decision in modern warfare - declaring war on the United States purely to maintain his image as a loyal ally to Japan. Despite having no treaty obligation and every strategic reason to avoid a two-front war, Hitler couldn't bear appearing weak or unreliable to his Axis partners.
The declaration was born entirely from ego and optics, not strategy. In one impulsive moment, driven by his need to project strength, Hitler handed Roosevelt the perfect gift - a declaration that galvanised American support for the very strategy planners had envisioned: an enormous two-front commitment that would treat Germany as the principal threat. You know what happened next.
Jimmy Carter was drowning in the polls when Iranian revolutionaries seized American hostages, and the pressure to look presidential became unbearable. Despite military advisers warning about the mission's complexity, Carter greenlit Operation Eagle Claw — not primarily to save the hostages, but to save his presidency. The mission was always more about optics than operations, a desperate attempt to project strength in an election year.
When helicopters collided in the Iranian desert, killing eight servicemen and leaving classified documents behind, the rescue attempt became a symbol of American impotence. Carter, seeking to appear decisive and strong, instead looked more helpless than ever. The failed mission sealed his electoral fate, and Ronald Reagan rode the backlash all the way to the White House.
Douglas MacArthur was a genuine American hero, a brilliant tactician who had saved countless lives through his strategic genius in the Pacific. But even great men can fall victim to the siren call of complete victory. After his masterful Inchon landing, MacArthur faced a choice that would define his legacy: stop at the 38th parallel or push for total triumph in North Korea.
The general, having tasted success and facing pressure from Washington not to settle for half-measures, chose to cross the line. It was an understandable decision from a commander who had delivered miracle after miracle. Yet history had one more lesson to teach: China entered the war, forcing the longest retreat in American military history. The general who had never known defeat watched his forces flee south, and President Truman ultimately relieved him of command. MacArthur's pursuit of total victory cost him everything he had built.
General Leopoldo Galtieri was a desperate man leading a desperate government when he ordered the invasion of the Falkland Islands. With Argentina's economy collapsing and massive protests filling the streets, the military junta needed a patriotic victory to survive. The Falklands seemed perfect — a beloved national cause that would unite the country behind its leaders.
"We need this," Galtieri reportedly told his cabinet, and for a brief moment, it worked. Massive crowds celebrated in Buenos Aires as Argentine flags flew over Port Stanley. But history cared nothing for Galtieri's political survival. Margaret Thatcher dispatched a task force 8,000 miles across the Atlantic, and within weeks, Argentina's military was in shambles.
From Delhi to Tel Aviv, from Berlin to Buenos Aires, history keeps repeating its lesson: optics may win headlines, but strategy decides legacies.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ