In adopting technology, we need a balanced approach in training that enhances both technological proficiency and fundamental skills.
Consider the challenges in conducting anti-drug operations in Mexico. Officers often operate in rugged terrain, tasked with locating and destroying drug plantations before safely returning to their base. Moreover, they need to maintain unit cohesion to fend off potential attacks by criminals. Essential to their mission is the skill of land navigation. Therefore, officers have increasingly turned to Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. However, reliance on such devices presents risks. Should officers lose their GPS device, damage it, or deplete its battery, they might find it difficult to navigate back through challenging terrain because they are less skilled and experienced using only traditional methods like maps and compasses.
This simple example is illustrative of a broader problem, a dependency on technology that leads to the loss of basic skills which can lead to disaster when technology fails. In adopting technology, we need a balanced approach in training that enhances both technological proficiency and fundamental skills. A strong warfighting culture ensures that soldiers possess the skills and knowledge necessary to perform tasks manually should technology fail. However, commanders often face time constraints that prevent them from incorporating this type of training into their plans. This leads to a potential overreliance on technology, creating a significant vulnerability for any army.
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and robotics into modern warfare is a topic that both fascinates and concerns many. These technologies are reshaping the very fabric of military strategy and operations, potentially redefining what it means to engage in war—a contest traditionally viewed as a test of human will and endurance.
As we delve into the dual role of AI in warfare, it’s essential to consider its impact. AI not only assists in making quicker, more informed decisions but also coordinates hybrid teams, integrating drones and robots with human warfighters to execute complex missions. This synergy mirrors the historical evolution of warfare, from the adaptation to gunpowder to the strategic deployment of nuclear weapons, where each technological leap has offered a new combat advantage.
Yet the challenges posed by AI and modern technology are uniquely profound. Business leaders are already concerned about basic skills atrophying, the same can happen in militaries, possibly overshadowing the foundational aspects of combat readiness—such as combat skills, situational awareness, and ethical judgment. These skills and competencies are crucial for a soldier’s ability to succeed and survive on the battlefield. Therefore, as militaries continue to harness the power of AI, they must also ensure that these fundamental skills are not only preserved but emphasized in military training.
U.S. Army leaders acknowledge this point. At the 2023 Eisenhower Luncheon, General Randy A. George, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, delivered a compelling message as to the essential balance between technology and traditional skills. His emphasis on simplicity within the sphere of military operations is a timely reminder as the world grapples with rapidly advancing technology. General George also underscored the vital need for soldiers to master fundamental skills such as shooting, moving, and communicating. These capabilities are the bedrock of military effectiveness and are honed through rigorous training and shared experiences in the field. This advocacy for technology serves as a support system for these skills, enhancing rather than replacing the human elements of warfare, and aligns with a broader perspective on how military forces worldwide are trying to integrate technological advancements. I will present concerns about overdependence in technology in three important military competencies.
Combat skills
To ensure effectiveness in combat environments, it is crucial to strike a balance between reliance on technology and the mastery of traditional military skills. Enhancing fundamental combat skills remains essential. Rigorous training ensures that soldiers are both proficient in their specialties and also physically fit, which is critical for survival in diverse and challenging operational contexts. This approach underlines the necessity of maintaining a robust skill set that supports technology but also thrives independently of it, thereby safeguarding operational integrity even in tech-limited scenarios.
It is also essential to consider how technological integration influences training and readiness. While technology can significantly enhance training outcomes, it must not replace the need for hands-on experience and the development of muscle memory, which are critical in unpredictable combat situations. It would also consider integrating manual skills training into regular routines, perhaps through dedicated drills or exercises designed to simulate technological failures.
Training exercises often emphasize the improvement of observation skills, pattern recognition, and decision-making abilities.
Situational awareness
Situational awareness allows soldiers to effectively navigate and respond to the dynamic conditions of the battlefield. This capability involves not only recognizing risks and opportunities but also swiftly reacting to them. Training focused on developing these natural instincts through exposure to real-life scenarios can significantly enhance a soldier’s ability to anticipate and respond to unexpected challenges.
Training exercises often emphasize the improvement of observation skills, pattern recognition, and decision-making abilities. For instance, practical exercises could enhance memory and observation skills by challenging individuals to remember details about various objects after a brief exposure or to increase peripheral vision, which proves more advantageous for identifying motion. Moreover, the use of tactical situational awareness training programs, such as those implemented at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, prepares soldiers by teaching them to observe human behavior, identify potential threats, and effectively report their findings.
We must be mindful that technological tools play a supportive role in enhancing situational awareness; consequently, we must employ them. Real-time data systems and advanced simulations help soldiers gain a comprehensive understanding of their surroundings, which is crucial for making informed decisions on the battlefield. However, in situations where technology fails or is unavailable, units could find themselves at a significant disadvantage if their personnel’s situational awareness has generally atrophied.
Ethical judgment
In the realm of modern warfare, where AI and autonomous systems play increasingly significant roles, it’s crucial for military personnel to be equipped with the ability to make ethical and moral judgments. Training programs should evolve to address these needs, particularly focusing on the ethical dilemmas posed by autonomous technologies. This includes making critical decisions about the deployment of autonomous weapons, differentiating between combatants and civilians, and assessing the unintended consequences of AI actions.
The ethical use of AI in military operations must ensure that personnel can exercise appropriate judgment, particularly concerning the deployment of autonomous weapons and distinguishing between combatants and civilians. There is an ongoing debate about the reliability of these systems and their ability to adhere to international humanitarian laws, such as discriminating effectively between combatants and non-combatants and assessing the proportionality of an attack. It is important to point out that the U.S. Department of Defense, recognizing these challenges, has adopted a set of ethical AI principles. These principles aim to ensure that AI applications in the military are responsible, equitable, traceable, reliable, and governable. The emphasis is on maintaining a human element in critical decision-making processes to ensure that technology supports rather than replaces moral responsibility.
Additionally, promoting ethical responsibility will foster a culture of warfighting that prioritizes ethical considerations, such as distinguishing between combatants and civilians and weighing the unintended consequences of AI actions. Leaders at all levels should exemplify and reinforce the importance of ethical decision-making, thereby embedding it as a core value within military organizations. This holistic approach underlines the importance of integrating technology in a way that enhances the warfighter’s capabilities without compromising the ethical foundations of military operations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the incorporation of AI and modern technology significantly enhances military capabilities but also introduces critical challenges that must be addressed within the warfighting culture. These advancements risk overshadowing vital essential knowledge such as combat skills, situational awareness, and ethical judgment—skills essential for the effectiveness, success, and survival of soldiers in combat. Therefore, as we continue to develop our technological capabilities, it is crucial to ensure that military training programs not only maintain but also emphasize these fundamental skills. This balanced approach is essential for preserving the core competencies that underpin successful military operations.
Carlos Peña is a colonel in the Mexican Army. He is an Armor Officer rooted in an educational background, including the Heroico Colegio Militar, the Escuela Superior de Guerra, and the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth. Colonel Peña’s operational experience spans various missions of the Mexican Armed Forces, encompassing support for public security operations and disaster relief efforts. Additionally, he has administrative experience, collaborating with diverse staff teams, including the National Defense Joint Staff. He is an International Fellow and a graduate of the AY24 Resident Course at the U.S. Army War College.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Army, or the Department of Defense.
Photo Description: Marines from the Mexican Naval Infantry during Urban Close Combat training on Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2022.
Photo Credit: Photo by Royal Australian Air Force Corporal John Solomon
Using the military adoption of gunpowder as an analogy (flawed as that maybe).
Is it better to invest time, energy and talent into preserving archery skills for occasions when conditions, like wet weather, impede use of primitive flint fired exposed powder guns?
Or is it better to invest in developing better gun technology, like guns using the center fire cartridge?
Training time and money are always limited, this will be a difficult question to answer concerning AI and other macro technologies.
Respectfully, this is definitely a flawed analogy.
The use of an arrow (or early firearms technology) has extremely limited overlap with modern warfighting – they have very little indirect application when using a modern carbine and, most significantly, one is not carrying a longbow or arquebus for those situations where one’s primary weapon may fail. While there is some small overlap ( soldiers who bow-hunt as an avocation will generally be better marksmen than if they didn’t), contingency fighting is focused on one’s pistol and (not enough) hand-to-hand and improvised weapons.
While map-and-compass land navigation is a much underdeveloped skill within western militaries, today, it remains a common and accessible fallback. In addition, GPS technology and information is built around the same fundamentals – knowing what the numbers on the DAGR mean instead of just where the arrow points can make the difference between life and death even in our modern age of technophilia. Of course, we should focus on the best tools we can make available but, if we’re going to jettison map-and-compass training, it should only be to encourage terrain association rather than further reliance on technology.
___________
The argument that we need to trade outmoded training for advancing technology is also flawed. Most combat arms joes (and an even greater percentage of those Officers) are not gunsmiths. Training and engineering are two very different processes (save the semantics with combat engineering) that are never professionally done at the same level by the same people.
Teaching MGRS or training analog LANDNAV costs nothing but time. While time is at a premium when push comes to shove, the vast majority of training time is squandered. Hell, the vast majority of wartime is boredom. Money is short because it is spent poorly, and we don’t control the purse – time is only limited because WE, as leaders, spend it poorly.