Mr Saletan,

There are a few issues I have with your post, not sure where to start, so I will start at the end.

Sen McCain's introduction to the horror of war, as you call it, was largely because he was shot down. He didnt care about the people underneath, couldnt see them, he had a payload to deliver. Thats little different than the pilot being in Nevada, just a matter of degree. Most technical innovations in warfare tend to place agressors further and further from each other. The days of hand to hand combat on a field of honor are over. Know what the favorite Monty Python sketch is for infantrymen? 'The Importance of Not Being Seen', thats what. The goal of most troops on a tactical level involves completetion of mission with minimalizing risk. Not being anywhere around does a pretty good job of that. War is already an unnatural and inhuman pursuit, doing it long distance is just a fact of life for those of us that live in these airplane, satellite and spaceship days.

But youre missing a bunch on the platform itself. Lets start with using x-box platforms for the gear. What a brilliant idea! I wish everything the government pissed away vast sums of cash on worked as well relative to a simple consumer electronic device. Its also great that the people who want to do that sort of thing will self segregate and self train. However, to get the guys who are really good at it, the Air Force will be having to give out a metric shitton of drug waivers. And probably have to allow bong hits in the tactical director too, but thats another story all together. We have a nation of people that dont see much use in being outside, sweating profusely and training to do strangers harm. Thats not a bad thing. Was (and the military) isnt a game and the boys and girls that sign up will find that out in short order. The Army has always used commercials, romanticization, jingles, promises of all sorts of shit (my favorite was a drop zone scene where some PFC walk up and says 'Good Morning, 1stSGT'. Right, an airborne 1SG has nothing better to do than offer you greetings on your morning stroll through the dropzone?) that have no basis in reality. Now, they are offering (or trying to offer) no basis in virtual reality. Video games are hot, so thats the way they will try and close the deal. Are you complaining the military got a good deal on the gear, or they adapt to current marketing?

And your assertion that the Predator or its follow up is the weapon of the post-Iraq period is laughable on its face. Do you know where the next war is, to make a statement like that? The requirements for using a drone are pretty stiff. You need complete air superiority and you need to be fairly sure you are far more technically sophisticated than opponent. A predator would go down like a clay pigeon in the face of real opposition. But they dont need to even shoot down the drone, they just need to interrupt C3. Wanna bet there are large teams of really smart people in say, Russia and Iran figuring out how to do just that? In the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, the drones have shown a much greater propensity to create terrorists, jihadists and insurgents than actually kill them. That doesnt seem like the weapon for now, much less the future. Is it nice to have a cheap aerial platform that can gather information and real-time intelligence, but to say the next war will be in a place against opponents that are vulnerable to drones is folly, considering how poorly it iis working out in the best of circumstances now. What is next, flying in formation to make sure they can completely annihilate helpless wedding parties, rather than only getting most of them?

The last thing you are forgetting is, were probably talking about the Air Force here. They cant STAND drones. The AF is all about planes and pilots, boys being macho and wearing sunglasses etc. That was part of the whole Gates precipitated bloodbath not too long ago. They didnt want to use the drones they had, nor change their mission from 350+ million dollar jets to cheap disposable (but useful in insurgent and ground combat) drones. Anyone remember the A-10? The most amazing ground attack aircraft in the history of the world, shelved, because it dont go that fast, lol. Ground support bomb trucks arent sexy, so the AF makes the F-15E. So how do you expect the AF to change their entire focus and culture without being dragged kicking and screaming? They arent going to give it up, theyre smart and have the wherewithal to survive. And dont think the AF is special. A Marine general was heard to remark after the raising of the flag of Iwo Jima 'That flag guarantees the existance of the Marine Corp for another 100 years'. I guess its good to have an eye for P.R. if youre going to be a general.

So I dont understand the point. Youre bitching about the gear, because its X-Box. I bet that works better than it would if it was made to government specs. adn training is cheap, get an X-box! Then you mention how great drones are and that they are the perfect weapon of the future. Which is it? X-box POS or the next wave in military evolotion? and I bet the 350 million price tage for a Raptor will buy alot of X-Boxes.

And your complaints about the 'synthetic environment', what bullshit. In the 'real' coombat environment you sweat, and hurt. If youre advancing into gunfire, you have a cold knot in your stomach that doesnt go away. You get eaten by bugs. You are tired and get fed shitty food and sleep outdoors in the rain. You get to hear screams of pain and see blood. Maybe, you get to smell a burning body. If the synthetic environment prevents people from getting to enjoy all these perquisites of war first hand, why is that a bad thing?

"If the synthetic environment prevents people from getting to enjoy all these perquisites of war first hand, why is that a bad thing?"

It isn't a bad thing for the individual soldier, it is a bad thing if you're interested in pursuing peace. Or occupying a country, which is what our military will be engaged in more and more.

It's only a bad thing in the pursuit of peace if your primary tactic is using a fear of the consequences of combat to inhibit military enlistment. Well, it would be a bad thing, if "the horror of war" thing had a history working. Thus far, I think that Japan is about the only nation that's ever gotten the point, and that was pretty much because they found themselves facing massive casualities from an enemy that was demonstrating the capability to inflict devastating strikes at will, with pretty much no fear of relatiation... Hmmm... Can we get nukes on a Predator yet?

I understand Mr. Saletan's point, and yours, that rasing a generation of soldiers who are accustomed to being able to deal death worldwide at will without having to worry about the other side being able to effectievly shoot back raises the specter of "casual" conflicts - blowing up a few hundred or a few thousand people because it's become easy and free of the fear of sacrifice.

But until heads of state are again evaluated on their personal battlefield valor, combat skills and ability to lead from the front, you're always going to have that. Why should the ability to stay out of the line of fire be limited only to the big brass and the leaders? And if you want the fear of bodily harm to drive peace, those are the people who need to feel the heat when war becomes an option.

I don't think Saletan is trying to argue that this is a good or bad thing. He's merely pointing out how weird it is, and how conflicting the idea of drone combat is. Rationally, removing soldiers from combat, and removing the trauma from combat, is fantastic. Imagine a conflict where not one soldier came back with PTSD, missing limbs, etc.

On the other hand, the notion that something so real and human as war (and yes war is very much human) can feel so detached, so inhuman, is very disturbing.

"the notion that something so real and human as war (and yes war is very much human) can feel so detached, so inhuman, is very disturbing."

I understand where you're coming from, but I suspect that a little desensitizing is just what the doctor ordered here. That Americans roll about in pain over the loss of less men than were lost in single battles of previous wars speaks to a considerable problem of the modern, wealthy mindset. Recall that in Plato's Republic, one of the main indictments against the Oligarchic state is that it fears to lose troops, makes war like a miser, and loses often. The next few steps of the state's evolution are democracy, in which free speech and free license are celebrated, and then tyranny. Plato may not have a perfect handle on prophesy, but I'd rather not try to find out.

The United States has had the rather incredible fortune of creating an empire of consent, in that the other nations of the world, though they probably would only grudgingly admit it, rely happily on her protection of the sea trade lanes and pay really nothing in the way of tribute for that service (other than hosting a few military bases on their soil). I'm unconvinced that abolition of that empire would be a good thing, and note that in the past only Roman standards seem to successfully maintain such things, and that the failure to uphold those measures has lead to collapse not only of said empire, but of the state ruling it. Can the US break the mold? Doubtful.

Ok, this is getting a little funny, lol. War is inhuman, sorry to say. Lets call it sapient behavior. War is what happens when humans are reduced to animal solutions. This is where there is a breakdown between civilization and Darwin. In most societies, its still fought at close quarters, 40 yards or less. America has bombs, missles, tanks, planes, etc. Much of our war effort is done at a distance, but the most crucial part is done up close and personal. Unless you have had the opportunity to put your life at risk in those circumstances, please dont presume that a respite from fear is a bad thing.

HIIK,

The answer to your question is both easy and difficult. What is the US? It is the sum of the citizens of this nation and their will. So, rearrange the statements. Dont ask, 'Can the US break the mold?', but rather 'Can the American people break the mold?'. The answer is the same, but at least the finger is pointed in the right place.