Many things may have evolved over the centuries, but some have not changed. One thing that has not changed is fog and friction in warfare. If fog and friction were removed from warfare, it would become a fairly straightforward affair. Hence, it is the fog and friction that make warfare complex and uncertain.
The significance of these two ‘Fs’ lies in their longevity and perhaps permanence. Interestingly, the credit for introducing the concepts and terms of both phenomena, fog and friction, is attributed to Carl von Clausewitz, a great war philosopher and historian of the Napoleonic wars. Rightly so because he used specific terminology. However, when the Chinese sage Sun Tzu said that ‘all warfare is based on deception’, he meant that a Commander must be able to create complexities and uncertainties for the enemy. Also, Sun Tzu went on to say, “Amid the turmoil and tumult of battle, there may be seeming disorder and yet no real disorder at all; amid confusion and chaos, your array may be without head or tail, yet it will be proof against defeat.”
By no means am I withdrawing credit for Clausewitz’s dicta on fog and friction, but simply highlighting that, if Sun Tzu had been translated correctly and in time before Clausewitz came to fore, even fog and friction would have been associated with Sun Tzu, as with deception and intelligence.
Moreover, another saying of Sun Tzu reflects his views on fog and friction. He said, “In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack-the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of manoeuvres.” It is these endless series of manoeuvres that Sun Tzu is talking about, which are the fog and friction of Clausewitz. These manoeuvres are meant to create difficulties for the enemy to discern one’s moves on the battlefield.
If fog represents uncertainty, friction represents unpredictability, and if fog represents confusion, then friction reflects a chaotic situation. Both Fog and friction in war blur the situational awareness and call for a review of the ongoing operations.
On the modern-day battlefield, too, both fog and friction remain as relevant as they were centuries ago. The revolution in military affairs (RMA), driven by technological advances and evolving doctrines, has done little to remove fog and friction in warfare.
When the Chinese sage Sun Tzu said that ‘all warfare is based on deception’, he meant that a Commander must be able to create complexities and uncertainties for the enemy.
In the aerial battles alone, the adversary could be shot down from a distance of 190 kms, if he/she was unable to observe and orient in time. Likewise, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have saturated ground defences to the point that even state-of-the-art systems cannot distinguish between a normal reconnaissance platform and an attacking intruder. In the underwater domain as well, efforts to integrate sensors and weapons are likely to create a dilemma for submarines, which were once considered assured second-strike capability systems.
Evidently, fog and friction are part and parcel of warfare, and they are going to stay. However, the question is whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) can help reduce, if not eliminate, the fog and friction on the modern-day battlefield. Why is this question so important? Because AI is being integrated into the decision-making loop in warfare, and the emerging, disruptive technologies employed in ongoing and all future wars will be such that the enemy may not be visible, yet the harm will be done.
Therefore, it is necessary that tech-nations come together on a single-point agenda: that AI be employed in the planning and execution of military operations, but that decision-making remains with the Commander until and unless AI has matured to a level where it can help reduce the fog and friction on the modern-day battlefield. Hence, the AI may be more employable for predictive analysis rather than for insisting on actions.
For this purpose, the significance of AI literacy cannot be overemphasised. AI literacy, both for Commanders and operators, must be made mandatory before it is made available as a tool for battlefield operations.
In my opinion, if the tech-nations do not agree on this point and the tech-giants believe AI will not reduce the fog and friction of warfare, then at least they must agree not to employ it as a decision-making tool on the battlefield, while its use in planning and deployment cannot be denied. If that cannot be agreed upon, then Sun Tzu and Clausewitz will remain relevant in the foreseeable future as well.
The writer of this article has authored four international books: Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan, South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace, Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War, and Diplomacy and Deterrence.”
The writer of this article has authored four international books: Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan, South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace, Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War, and Diplomacy and Deterrence.”