By Shahyaq Baloch
Abstract:
This study examines the recent campaign claimed by the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), known as Operation Herof Phase II, through a comparative historical lens. By situating the campaign alongside two landmark military operations—Germany’s Blitzkrieg during the Second World War and the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War—this study argues that Herof Phase II reflects a strategic emphasis on simultaneity, psychological disruption, and narrative warfare. While significantly different in scale, resources, and actors, all three cases demonstrate how non-linear warfare seeks to undermine state authority by attacking perception, legitimacy, and confidence rather than merely military capacity.
Introduction:
Armed conflict in the twenty-first century increasingly defies traditional battlefield logic. Insurgencies and non-state actors, operating under conditions of material asymmetry, often adopt strategies that prioritise psychological impact over conventional military success. The recent wave of coordinated attacks in Balochistan claimed by the Baloch Liberation Army under the title Operation Herof Phase II represents such an evolution. Rather than functioning as isolated acts of violence, these attacks appear to form part of a broader strategic campaign aimed at destabilising the state’s claim to control.
To understand the strategic logic underpinning this campaign, it is useful to move beyond regional analysis and engage in historical comparison. Two precedents—Blitzkrieg and the Tet Offensive—offer valuable analytical frameworks. Although these operations were conducted by vastly different actors under radically different conditions, they share a common emphasis on shock, simultaneity, and the disruption of political narratives. This study argues that Herof Phase II draws conceptually, though not operationally, from these historical traditions.
Blitzkrieg: Speed, Shock, and the Collapse of Control:
Blitzkrieg, developed by Nazi Germany in the interwar period and deployed during the early years of the Second World War, represented a radical departure from attritional warfare. Its central objective was not the gradual destruction of enemy forces but the rapid paralysis of command, coordination, and morale. Through concentrated attacks, rapid manoeuvring, and close coordination between air and ground forces, Blitzkrieg sought to create a sense of inevitability and chaos within enemy ranks.
At its core, Blitzkrieg was a strategy of systemic disruption. By striking multiple points simultaneously and advancing faster than an opponent could react, it transformed speed into a psychological weapon. The enemy’s inability to respond coherently often proved more decisive than battlefield losses themselves.
While Herof Phase II lacks the mechanised and technological foundations of Blitzkrieg, the conceptual resemblance lies in the use of simultaneity to overwhelm decision-making structures. The BLA’s campaign does not aim to defeat state forces in open combat; rather, it seeks to challenge the assumption that the state can predict, prevent, and contain insurgent action. In this sense, speed and coordination serve symbolic purposes, projecting the image of an adversary that is agile, adaptive, and persistent.
Tet Offensive: America’s Strategic Defeat and Vietnam’s Psychological Victory:
The Tet Offensive of January 1968 stands as one of the most studied case studies of psychological warfare in modern conflict history. Conducted by the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces, the offensive involved coordinated attacks across more than one hundred locations in South Vietnam, including major cities and symbolic targets. From a military perspective, the offensive was costly and failed to produce lasting territorial gains, but strategically it proved transformative.
The significance of the Tet Offensive lay not only on the battlefield but also in its impact on perception. It contradicted the official narrative that the war was nearing victory and exposed the fragility of claims about security and control. The fighting in urban centres, which was also broadcast globally, eroded public confidence in the war effort and reshaped political discourse in the United States.
Herof Phase II exhibits a similar logic to the Tet Offensive. It also appears designed to puncture narratives of stability rather than hold territory. The value of the campaign lies in its visibility and symbolic resonance; even when attacks are repelled, their occurrence challenges official assurances and reinforces the perception of an unresolved conflict. In insurgent warfare, this erosion of confidence can be as consequential as military defeat.
Herof Phase II: Insurgency as Campaign, Not Incident:
What distinguishes Herof Phase II from earlier phases of the Baloch insurgency is its apparent shift from episodic violence to campaign-based confrontation. The naming of the operation itself suggests an attempt to frame insurgent activity within a coherent narrative that emphasises continuity, escalation, and intent.
The campaign reflects several characteristics associated with modern insurgent strategy:
- Decentralisation: In Herof Phase II, the actions appear dispersed rather than concentrated, complicating counterinsurgency responses.
- Simultaneity: The near-concurrent nature of the attacks enhances their psychological impact.
- Symbolic Communication: The campaign is as much about messaging as it is about military engagement.
- Endurance Signalling: By sustaining activity over time, the insurgency signals resilience rather than immediate victory.
In this respect, Herof Phase II resembles the Tet Offensive more closely than Blitzkrieg. It does not seek rapid conquest but rather aims to reframe the conflict by asserting that the insurgency remains a durable political and military actor despite decades of counterinsurgency.
Despite fundamental differences in scale and legitimacy, Blitzkrieg, the Tet Offensive, and Herof Phase II converge around a shared strategic insight: wars are contests of narrative as much as of force. Each operation sought to disrupt an opponent’s confidence, challenge claims of control, and impose psychological costs disproportionate to material input.
However, the limitations are equally important. Blitzkrieg ultimately failed when confronted with prolonged war and resource exhaustion. The Tet Offensive, while politically transformative, came at immense human cost and did not yield immediate liberation. Similarly, Herof Phase II operates within severe structural constraints and faces a state with overwhelming military superiority.
The comparison, therefore, should not be read as equivalence but as analytical analogy. The BLA’s campaign reflects an understanding borne out repeatedly in modern history: asymmetrical actors often pursue influence through disruption rather than domination.
Conclusion:
Operation Herof Phase II represents a strategic evolution in the Baloch insurgency, one that prioritises psychological warfare, simultaneity, and narrative challenge over conventional military success. When analysed alongside Blitzkrieg and the Tet Offensive, the campaign reveals how historical patterns of strategic shock continue to shape contemporary conflicts, even among non-state actors.
The lesson of history is not that such strategies guarantee success but that they can profoundly alter the political terrain of a conflict. As Vietnam demonstrated, the consequences of such campaigns often unfold not on the battlefield but in public discourse, policy debates, and the long-term legitimacy of state authority. Understanding these dynamics is essential for any serious engagement with the ongoing conflict in Balochistan.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Balochistan Post or any of its editors.