There will be competing requirements for the employment of the limited assets, which may lead to unwarranted friction. Which service would decide on the objective, prioritisation of targets, allocate resources, and decide on other pressure points to be coerced? Who would have the macro view of the overall situation not only in areas of land battle but also in other domains? Who would be able to exploit success in one theater to achieve a favorable outcome overall, while the setbacks in another theater are being contained? Is it enough to have senior officers collect information from the various services and pass it on to the political heads? CDS obviously is the professional requirement in any conflict scenario. The fact is inarguable, that in a highly dynamic and fluid situation, that is complicated by the fog and friction of war, the future without a CDS is bleak. Some of the Identified issues are enumerated in succeeding paragraphs.
5. Inter-Service Rivalry. Inter-Service rivalry exists in all countries. The job of the politician is to resolve such rivalry and encourage cohesiveness. In the U.S., sparring between the services was evident during the Korean and Vietnam wars, and is well captured by the statement of General Curtis LeMay of U.S. Air Force who famously said in 1964, “The Soviets are our adversary. Our enemy is the Navy.” Realising the danger posed by unrestricted inter-service rivalry, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation in the form of the Goldwater Nicholas Act in 1986. On the contrary, it is believed, that India is the only country where the bureaucracy actively encourages inter service rivalry, largely to the ignorance of the politician.