Is it possible to wage war without killing anyone?
Consider the human above the technology: If war is inevitable and one death is too many, is it possible to wage war without killing anyone?
There’s a lot of talk these days about the “future warrior�? and, depending on whose home turf you’re on, he is either high-tech or rogue, military or paramilitary. On the one hand, said warrior benefits from digital tools, imaging equipment, and high-functioning materials. On the other hand, he makes do with found materials, hand-me-down weapons, and inventiveness. In both scenarios, he plays to win.
If, as military historian Gwynne Dyer suggests, conventional reasons for going to war (land, primarily) are fading away, then why not entertain the possibility of designing a new model of warfare, without the bells, whistles, and body bags?
In an age of information warfare, where the distinctions between virtual and real are fuzzy at best, why are we imagining a future warrior who’s armed with tools for killing anyway? Why not envision our soldier of the future stepping away from the killing fields towards a war zone that supports non-violence? Arm him with cultural history, diplomacy, language skills, courage, charisma, and the ability to take an open-minded view of enduring conflicts. Help him recognize the human being in another.
This is unabashedly utopian, but - considering the alternative, a soldier decked out in Terminator gear, whose primary training takes place in computer simulated worst-case scenarios - it’s more closely aligned to Toynbee’s practical objective of considering the welfare of the entire human race.
All this technological wizardry is amazing, but crazy. Considering that no other military in the world could even dream up a technologically-equivalent foe, what’s the point in all this? Technological solutions to socio-cultural conflicts miss the point entirely.
When presented with the choice, which future warrior will we choose?
Image: Future Warrior, US Army Soldier Systems Center (Natick)
