Technology and the military

Technology is always seductive to the military commander. Technology promises a way to kill the bad guy without risking your own soldiers.

Gulf War I was a great example of the application of technology. A long air-war with precision guided weapons resulted is a quick victory with very low casualties for allied forces. This unprecedented victory had several negative consequences.

The Gulf War gave both military and political leaders an illusion that war is understandable and can be controlled from the top down. This is simply a delusion. No matter how perfect your technological intelligence - SIGINT (signals intelligence) or IMINT (imagery intelligence) - it does not replace on the ground HUMINT (human intelligence).

The Gulf War's technological success also fed into the procurement of new and expensive weapon systems - crusader, F22, etc. However, precision weapon systems and fancy equipment will never replace the infantry soldier and 'boots on the ground'. Look at WWII and the reaction of the British public to German bombings. The bombing did not break their resolve, but hardened it, 'This was their finest hour.' - Winston Churchill. Air power and technology can shape the battlefield and set the stage, but infantry soldiers will always be the final and decisive weapon, opening doors, searching closets, and occupying the terrain.

Finally, the illusion of a technological solution contributed to the low number of ground forces approved for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Technology allowed the US military to win the battles that lead up to the seizure of Baghdad but technology was ineffectual in securing the peace. The current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan are great examples of the limitations of technology and air-power.

During the Cold War we spent out defense money on technological systems. During the 'Long War', we need to spend our defense money on people.