The Future of War

The American military plans to drastically reduce its manpower strength. The reasoning behind this decision concludes that thousands of soldiers can increasingly be replaced by high-tech means: Computer hackers, robots and remotely guided unmanned drones will fight the battles of the future. But that decision could be a mistake fraught with serious consequences.

The German army has long since withdrawn from Kunduz, but the capital city still stands as a symbol for ambushes, fallen soldiers and the deadly 2009 bombardment with its many civilian victims. In short, Kunduz symbolizes a war that only made everything worse. In 2010, despite all the setbacks, the German army, along with Afghan troops, succeeded in driving the Taliban out of areas the holy warriors had declared “liberated,” village by village. U.S. special operations troops hunted Taliban leaders by night and reinforcement ground troops secured the recently won territory with a network of new military installations. Experts built medical facilities and wells for drinking water in the villages.

Operation Halmazag was certainly just a snapshot in time; how permanent the limited victory will be after NATO troops withdraw from Afghanistan at the end of 2014 remains an open question. But it does exemplify how an asymmetrical war can be successfully fought: It requires “boots on the ground.”

However, according to Pentagon planners, the number of boots is to be reduced. The personnel strength of the U.S. Army will be reduced to a level unseen since the period immediately preceding World War II. These and other cuts are certainly due to the budget crisis in the United States, but in the background there is also a feeling that the deployment of thousands of troops can be replaced by applying high tech methods: unmanned stealth aircraft, multipurpose attack aircraft and special operations units outfitted with science fiction-like weaponry.

Much of that is due to simple modernization. World War I saw the end of horse cavalry units, World War II the demise of the battleship. Now many foresee the dawning of the age of unmanned weapons systems. Protracted campaigns like Afghanistan, already unpopular due to high casualty rates, are to be avoided. Battles are to be fought by computer hackers, robots and remotely controlled unmanned drones, not by soldiers.

But this could be a mistake with potentially serious ramifications, as was America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq and ensuing unnecessary war, employing too few troops that eventually resulted in a loss of situational control. Western armies will certainly undergo a dramatic change because of advanced technology, but not to the extent of making troops unnecessary, especially in view of today’s asymmetric wars.

The American drone war against Islamic terrorists is a disturbing example of over-reliance on technology, human rights issues aside. The drones are invisible, their rockets fired by a combatant in Nevada, the death without warning — the firepower superiority vis-à-vis the enemy is as great as that of the British army matched against the Afghan irregulars at the end of the 19th century, when the British employed the machine gun for the first time. As Hilaire Belloc wrote, “Whatever happens / we have got / the Maxim gun / and they have not.” But the supposedly very accurate drones in Pakistan and Somalia have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of noncombatants, all victims of technology that is only as good as the military strategy they serve. The result: more hatred and more terrorist attacks.

Better Too Many Boots on the Ground than Not Enough

David Petraeus, the far-sighted NATO commander in Afghanistan, expressed the principle of successful counterinsurgency somewhat differently, saying while it was necessary to pursue the insurgents relentlessly, the top priority had to be the protection of civilians.

In the wake of 9/11, NATO didn’t invade Afghanistan because the free world was seeking adventure but because al-Qaida had set up its headquarters there. The West had to respond and it may have to do so again. If new deployments are necessary, they will need not only drones but mainly soldiers to keep the peace and other troops to ensure their safety, as well as aid workers to rebuild trust and continue the nation-building process. In French-speaking African nations, it is apparent that all these are needed; French troops have already intervened in Mali for what is expected to be a short military incursion. George Orwell wrote, “We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”

It will be that way for some time — perhaps forever.