Abstract: For defense departments and professional militaries of advanced liberal democracies, judgments concerning future armed conflict are necessary guide force preparation, personnel readiness, and equipment procurement. When such judgments are made in times of economic austerity and geopolitical uncertainty, need for clarity of thought on future of war becomes imperative in determining priorities. ********** It is not primarily in present, nor in past that we live. Our life is an activity directed towards what is come. The significance of present and past only becomes clear afterwards in relation future. Jose Ortega y Gassett While all advanced military establishments engage in intellectual examinations about future of armed conflict, it is often unclear which intellectual methods actually represent best futures practice. In any Western officer corps one can find contending advocates for best interpret future of war. Some argue that lens of human experience--filtered through a Clausewitzian-style of military history as Kritik--is most sensible way forward; others prefer geometrical tradition of Jomini and seek gain better understanding through science in form of operations research and technical experimentation; still others prefer look interdisciplinary subject of strategic studies as a means of revealing holistic insights on armed conflict. Further diversity in professional outlook is often imposed by imperatives of service affiliation and specialized training for separate domains of land, sea, and aerospace warfare. Speculation on future of war may also be affected by demands of hierarchical military culture ranging from idiosyncratic command preferences imposition of short-term strategic and operational goals. Not surprisingly, ad hoc intellectual endeavors can easily dominate military institutions--driven as much by interaction of budgets, personalities, and internal compromises--as by objective mental rigor. Such pressures led American philosopher Lewis Mumford conclude that military establishments represent the refuge of third-rate minds in which institutional thinking can be conformist, sometimes dogmatic, and frequently anti-intellectual. (1) This article probes generic intellectual requirements involved in preparing consider problems of future war. Two caveats are immediately required. First, author makes no claims having uncovered any magic formulae for predictive accuracy about future conflicts. Second, this essay is not a meditation on full sweep of potential future military operations from computers through cyberwarfare climate change. Rather, it is a reflection on conceptual demands of dealing with future armed conflict--what Peter Paret calls cognitive challenge of war--the how think dimension which is most serious problem facing any military organization. (2) The author believes that, for armed forces establishments, futures studies, if properly conceived and conducted, are likely be particularly valuable over next decade. When militaries are faced with an end a long period of hostilities--as is case with United States and its allies in 2014--they must embark on rigorous contemplation of shape of future war. The task is to look ahead, not into distant future, but beyond vision of operating officers caught in smoke and crises of current battle; far enough ahead see emerging form of things come and outline what should be done meet or anticipate them. (3) With these issues in mind, three areas are analyzed. First, provide philosophical and methodological context, development of modern futures studies is explored and its intellectual connections field of strategic studies are highlighted. In second section, role history can play in military futures studies is explored. …
Read full abstract