The human element in warfare and how tech won’t be doing the fighting

In the 1990s, the military world buzzed with the promise of a “Revolution in Military Affairs” (RMA), heralding a new era defined by cutting-edge technology and transformative strategies. Yet, as history has shown, the anticipated seismic shifts in warfare were often overstated, overshadowed by the enduring truths of human nature and the timeless nature of war. Today, as we stand on the brink of another supposed RMA driven by drones and artificial intelligence, we must confront a harsh and enduring reality: the nature of war remains unchanged. The human element—our motivations, fears, and decisions—continues to shape the battlefield far more than any technological advancement ever could. This article argues that, much like the RMA of the past, the current fixation on technological innovation risks neglecting the enduring centrality of the human element that has defined the very nature of war down through the ages and across the globe.

The 1990s RMA was characterized by an overwhelming belief that technology would redefine how wars were fought. Proponents argued that precision-guided munitions, advanced surveillance systems, and network-centric warfare would render traditional military strategies obsolete. However, as conflicts unfolded in the years that followed, it became clear that while technology could enhance capabilities, it could not replace the human judgment and adaptability that are essential in warfare. The Gulf War showcased the effectiveness of high-tech weaponry, but subsequent engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan revealed the limitations of relying solely on technology in complex, asymmetric conflicts. The human element—understanding the local populace, navigating cultural dynamics, and making ethical decisions—remained paramount.

Fast forward to today, and we find ourselves enmeshed in a similar narrative. The rise of drones and AI has sparked a nearly giddy excitement about a new era of warfare, with many experts proclaiming that these technologies will revolutionize military operations. Drones promise precision strikes with minimal risk to personnel, while AI offers the potential for rapid data analysis and decision-making. However, this enthusiasm often overlooks a crucial point: technology does not operate in a vacuum. The effectiveness of these innovations hinges on human operators who must interpret data, make strategic choices, and engage with the complexities of warfare. The belief that technology alone can dictate the outcome of conflicts is a dangerous oversimplification.

Moreover, reliance on technology can create a false sense of security. As we witnessed in the early days of drone warfare, the initial successes can lead to overconfidence, resulting in strategic miscalculations. The human element is not just a factor; it is the foundation upon which military success is built. The decisions made by commanders, the morale of troops, and the perceptions of local populations all play critical roles in shaping the outcome of conflicts. Ignoring these factors in favor of a purely technological perspective risks repeating the mistakes of the past.

The current discourse surrounding AI in warfare further exemplifies this oversight. While AI has the potential to enhance decision-making processes, it cannot replicate the nuanced understanding that human leaders bring to the table. The ethical implications of autonomous weapons systems raise profound questions about accountability and the moral responsibilities of military leaders. As we integrate AI into our military strategies, we must remain vigilant about the potential for dehumanization in warfare. The reliance on algorithms and machine learning should not eclipse the necessity for human judgment, empathy, and ethical considerations.

Additionally, the character of war itself remains unchanged, regardless of the tools at our disposal. War is fundamentally about human conflict, driven by political, social, and economic factors. The motivations that lead nations to engage in warfare—territorial disputes, ideological differences, and resource competition—are deeply rooted in human nature. While technology may alter the methods of engagement, it does not alter the underlying causes of conflict. The belief that drones and AI can fundamentally change the nature of war is a misreading of history and human behavior.

As we navigate this new landscape of military innovation, it is essential to recognize that the human element must remain at the forefront of our strategies. Military leaders must prioritize training that emphasizes critical thinking, cultural awareness, and ethical decision-making. The integration of technology should enhance, not replace, the human capacity for judgment and adaptability. By fostering a culture that values the human element, we can ensure that our military remains effective in an increasingly complex and unpredictable world.

In conclusion, the lessons of the past remind us that while technology will continue to evolve, the essence of warfare will remain rooted in human nature. The current excitement surrounding drones and AI should not blind us to the enduring truths of conflict. As we stand on the precipice of what some are calling a new RMA, we must resist the temptation to overstate the impact of technology and instead focus on the human element that has always defined warfare. By doing so, we can navigate the complexities of modern conflict with a clear understanding of what truly matters: the decisions made by individuals, the relationships forged on the battlefield, and the moral imperatives that guide our actions. The future of warfare may be shaped by technology, but it will always be fought by humans.

Andrew Latham, Ph.D., a tenured professor at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is also a Senior Washington Fellow with the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy in Ottawa and a non-resident fellow with Defense Priorities, a think tank in Washington, D.C.