The objection raises real historical questions, but it does not show that Surah al-Fil is implausible. It mainly shows that later retellings contain details which must be distinguished from the Quran's brief and carefully worded account.
What the objection gets right
The traditional biography identifies the army with Abraha, the Christian ruler of Yemen, and says that he marched toward Mecca with an elephant to destroy the Kaaba. It is reasonable to ask how an elephant could be supplied over such a distance, why a ruler would need one to destroy a shrine, and why archaeology has not produced a clear record of Abraha's elephants. It is also fair to observe that the Quran does not give Abraha's name, the date, or the exact mechanism by which the army was destroyed.
These cautions matter. Some later reports are embellished, and the Quran should not be treated as though every detail in the sira has equal certainty.
What the Quran actually says
Have you not seen how your Lord dealt with the Army of the Elephant? Did He not make their plan go astray, and send against them birds in flocks, pelting them with stones of baked clay, leaving them like eaten-up straw?
Quran 105:1-5
The passage assumes that the event was known to its first hearers, but it says only "the Army of the Elephant." It does not claim that the Kaaba was demolished, nor that every later description is revelation. The traditional identification with Abraha is supported by early Muslim historical memory, while the Quran presents the central point: an attacking force was turned back by God's decree.
The logistical objection is also stronger rhetorically than geographically. Southern Arabia and the Hijaz were connected by established routes, with wells and settlements; the journey was difficult, not literally an empty wasteland with no water. Aksumite and South Arabian armies had contact with African military technology, and an elephant could be used as a symbol of terror and royal power, not merely as a tool for physically breaking a building. Its presence would itself serve the campaign's political and religious purpose.
Miracle, disease, and historical evidence
Classical commentators differed over the birds and the stones. Some understood the account literally; others suggested that the stones carried a severe epidemic. That variation does not erase the event. Nor does an epidemic interpretation make the story ordinary: the Quran attributes the army's defeat to God's intervention without requiring one particular medical explanation.
Absence of coins, stables, or carvings is not decisive. Temporary military animals, especially an imported elephant, need not leave identifiable remains, and ancient inscriptions rarely record every failed expedition. The event was also remembered within living communities when the Quran was first recited. Had the Meccans regarded it as an obvious fabrication, public opposition could have challenged the claim, although silence cannot prove every detail.
Surah al-Fil therefore establishes a Quranic claim about God's protection and the defeat of a hostile army. It does not by itself establish every biographical detail about Abraha, nor does it provide a modern archaeological proof. The historical objections invite careful qualification, but they do not make the narrative impossible or internally incoherent.