Who Decides: Man or Machine?

By Major Daniel L. David
Armed Forces Journal, November 2007

Edited by Andy Ross

Numerous robots in Iraq and Afghanistan are showing utility in counter-IED efforts and can significantly enhance a soldier's ability to clear a hostile building. Semi-robotic UAVs provide imagery on enemy movements, and fire precision-guided weapons at enemy targets. However, the version of warfare elucidated by some defense experts could lead to a dangerous misunderstanding of the appropriate use and utility of technology in warfare.

Although we have made extraordinary advances in technology over the years, it is unlikely that any robotic or artificial intelligence could ever replicate the ability of a trained fighting man in combat. A machine cannot sense something is wrong and take action when no orders have been given. It doesn't have intuition. It cannot operate within the commander's intent and use initiative outside its programming. It doesn't have compassion and cannot extend mercy.

A computer running a robot will kill if ordered to do so, even in a situation in which a well-trained soldier would recognize the best thing to do is to hold fire. Carried far enough, America might no longer be respected as a powerful but ultimately life-loving nation, and instead be regarded as an efficient, heartless killing machine to be feared and hated. That would not serve our national interest.

The idea that robots can do our fighting masks the realities of war: unpredictability, violence, destruction, misery, suffering and death. What proponents of robotic warfare apparently don't stop to recognize is that these robot armies will be sent to fight men, to kill, to destroy.

General George Patton once said, "Wars may be fought with weapons but they are won by men." Recognizing this immutable fact, there are many in the Army's signature future force program, Future Combat Systems (FCS), who are working hard to ensure this balance is institutionalized in the Army's future.

FCS, when fully fielded, will include the use of improved fighting vehicles and a significant increase in firepower, situational awareness and precision engagements. It will also include several variants of robots, some of which are designed to engage enemy forces in direct combat. It is critical that as FCS develops, these capabilities remain in the domain of enhancing the ability of the combat soldier as opposed to replacing him.

Colonel Lee Fetterman, training and doctrine capabilities manager for FCS, sees potential for robots to significantly increase the Army's ability to detect the enemy or target, deliver the ordnance necessary to destroy the target and assess the effects of the attack. However, in the design of the systems that will employ robots, Fetterman said he believes an important potential capability should not be employed: the "decide" component.

There are those in the U.S. defense community who see only the promised benefits of employing robots in future war. However, a vision that is over-reliant on technology rests on shaky ground because it fails to adequately consider robotic limitations.

More importantly, insufficient attention has been paid to the actions and abilities of our future opponents and their ability to overcome the initial advantage we would gain through the use of robotics. It is of paramount importance that as we aggressively pursue technology, we accord the human dimension at least an equal share of our focus.

We must wisely maximize our leverage of all present and emerging technology to enable our soldiers to fight and win in both the current and future fight. But within that effort, leaders at every level must never forget that the violent and unpredictable nature of warfare has never changed and will never change, and the ability of the combat soldier and his leader will remain the decisive factor in all future war.


Major Daniel L. Davis is an Army cavalry officer who fought in Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and served in Afghanistan in 2005. He is in Future Combat Systems at Fort Bliss, Texas.