The future of armed conflict is a divisive topic in which competing camps and actors grapple to control the narrative.[1] Not formalized in existing literature, four basic schools of thought exist in the conflict and defense studies fields.[2] These camps include the Futurist, Traditionalist, Institutionalist, and Conflict Realism. Each of these camps provides value to the study of armed conflict. Yet, the over-reliance on one camp over others creates unhelpful distortions and implications that can impede the student and practitioner of war’s ability to think clearly about war and warfare. A holistic view of armed conflict, which takes into consideration all four camps, is needed to help overcome unhelpful distortions and find the essence of the problems in armed conflict.
The Futurist camp, for instance, asserts that drones, artificial intelligence, and cyber are the future of armed conflict.[3] Meanwhile, the Traditionalist camp does not drift far from the musings of Prussian theorist Carl von Clausewitz and they often serve as a regulating force on those making bold assertions that are out of step with historical precedent. Institutionalists, or those who are socialized to think and speak in their professional organizations’ respective language, tend toward reinforcing their professional institution’s thinking.[4] As a result, Institutionalist thought in Western militaries stays close to maneuver, precision, and technology-centric advocacy.
These three camps are the leading voices in today’s conflict and defense studies communities, despite dubious records of success. They are the leaders not because they are more right than wrong, but because they reinforce institutional and cultural values, and because they are more comfortable than the alternative—Conflict Realism.
This article asserts that Conflict Realism is a marginalized field regarding the future of armed conflict and that Conflict Realists are one of the most overlooked actors when it comes to the study of war. Nonetheless, Conflict Realists provide a useful and pragmatic alternative to the Futurists, Traditionalists, and Institutionalists that dominate the study of war today.
The primary problem with these camps is that they generally represent modern, and future, war through the gilded lens of aspiration and how armed conflict should be, instead of viewing war and warfare through the blood-red lens of how things are, and arguably, how armed conflict will be in the future. Futurists, Institutionalists, and Traditionalists thinking on armed conflict fails to appropriately account for realistic deductions from modern war and how those deductions factor into future armed conflict.
Moreover, all three camps reflect a view of war which is idealistic, optimistic, and self-centered. This gilded and bureaucratic outlook on armed conflict overlooks or discredits many disquieting realities of war and warfare. The impact of these omissions and rejections of reality tends to not be felt in the moment, but down the road when the truth of armed conflict again overturns rosy assertions of how wars should be fought. The U.S. government provided Ukraine dire warnings of a pending Russian invasion ahead of February 2022.[5] Nonetheless, The mea culpas emanating from theorists, academics, and practitioners in the wake of Russia’s February 2022 re-invasion of Ukraine, and the horrendous combat that has ensued, make this point self-evident.[6] Conflict Realism, not so much a coherent body of knowledge, but a generalized grouping of thoughts by critically minded analysts, offers a more useful alternative to the study of war and warfare.
To think strategically about the future of armed conflict requires embracing a holistic view of war, as opposed to a preferential view, and must not operate in a zero-sum manner, which is a problematic undercurrent stifling military thought today.
States and Western militaries must more fully embrace Conflict Realism as a viable school of thought when examining future armed conflict. Conflict Realism, which emphasizes the importance of causal mechanisms in armed conflict, as opposed to preference, narrative, procurement strategies, and centuries-old logic, provides a useful tool for policymakers, academics, and practitioners preparing for future armed conflict.
The Conflict Realism taxonomy is offered with a degree of reservation because detractors will quickly find flaws with the schools of thought set forth in this paper. Nonetheless, the schools of thought are not intended to be a scientific classification, but an ontological frame to illuminate an overlooked and underappreciated element in the study of armed conflict. Further, to think strategically about the future of armed conflict requires embracing a holistic view of war, as opposed to a preferential view, and must not operate in a zero-sum manner, which is a problematic undercurrent stifling military thought today.
Schools of Thought
The conflict and defense studies communities can be classified along various lines. Aligning participants into three primary interest groups—theorists, academics, and practitioners—is a useful taxonomy. These groupings are the large pots in which the conflict and defense studies’ schools of thought socialize their respective ideas. Individuals can easily fit into more than one classification. For instance, a practitioner can also be an academic, or an academic can also be a theorist. This degree of fidelity, however, is not required to continue discussing the schools of thought.
A 2021 paper by John Myers and David Jackson makes a good attempt to further classify military thought by aligning it into Futurist and Traditionalist camps.[7] These groups are useful, but simultaneously insufficient. Four basic schools of military thinking—Futurists, Traditionalists, Institutionalists, and the Conflict Realists—provide the community of interest a more nuanced understanding of contemporary military thought.
A holistic view of armed conflict, which takes into consideration all four camps, is needed to help overcome unhelpful distortions and find the essence of the problems in armed conflict.
Futurists
Futurists—the prophets of technology—promise that applied science will make future armed conflict more precise, less expensive, more indirect, and less destructive.[8] As a result, the Futurist prospectus commands attention today. The U.S.’s fascination with technological advancement and technology-based problem-solving results in the Futurists being the camp de jure, and at the front of nearly all contemporary discussion on future armed conflict. Recent Western investment in futures commands in both the U.S. and the U.K. make this fact readily apparent.[9]
Futurists are often the leading proponents for so-called revolutions in military affairs, and the assertions that game-changing technology has, or will, fundamentally alter the nature of war.[10] Futurist thought thumbs its nose at analysis which posits that technology is more often evolutionary instead of revolutionary, and that technological advancement just contributes to the morass of wars of attrition.[11] Further, Futurists brush aside inconvenient truths about armed conflict, such as the fact that neither drones, precision targeting, nor precision munitions have made modern armed conflict any less destructive, less expensive, or less resource-intensive than war from a generation ago.[12] To be sure, billionaire Futurist Elon Musk recently, and incorrectly, argued that the side in war which possesses the best technology wins, and does so quickly.[13]
