It is a historically proven truth that military defeats lead to a loss of political power, especially in democracies. Even before democracies, Napoleon’s grip on power loosened after his ignominious retreat from Russia in 1812.

Tsar Nicholas II of Russia’s slide from power was also hastened by Russian defeats under his reign in the Russo-Japanese War and the military humiliations at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes. The same fate awaited the once-mighty Habsburg and Ottoman Empires after the military defeats of World War I.

Closer to home in India, three-term prime minister Nehru was not the same man he once was after the military humiliation of 1962 at the hands of China. The same fate awaited General Yahya Khan after the 1971 war, when the nation and his own institution forced him to resign as President. The defeat in the Falklands War in 1982 also prised open the Argentine military junta’s vice-like grip on power, leading to a democratic transition. Since hanging on to power by autocrats after a military defeat has proven exceedingly difficult in the past, one can only imagine the plight of democrats who must face democratic accountability.

Though no American president was forced to resign due to setbacks in the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson’s decision not to seek re-election in 1968 is ascribed to failures in Vietnam. Presently, the spectre of military defeat – or the possibility of unrealised war aims – haunts the Russian, Ukrainian and Israeli leaderships as they prosecute their respective wars. This may be the single most significant stumbling block preventing a........

© The News International