I have been following, with great interest, the debate about the Human Element and the US Army’s The Human Dimension White Paper over at The Bridge. As an outsider looking into the US military establishment, and once you get past the shnazzy buzzwords, the paper provides a useful starting point for discussion of the human element of war — and that discussion is well and truly under way in the US.

We recently received a brief from a senior officer about the importance of the human factor — that it is the one key constant characteristic of war. Technology evolves, but is not the panacea for achieving strategic outcomes. An understanding of what is lies in people’s hearts and compels them to fight is arguably more important (‘primordial violence/hatred/enmity’ or ‘fear/honour/interest’). Further, investing in a military that is built on an adaptable, well educated and well trained force is an important means to mitigate against the uncertainties presented by the changing character of war.

I note that the dialogue regarding the human element seems centred on land forces. I haven’t yet found a discussion that focuses on the human element within air forces. My sense is that air forces have traditionally focused on the interface between man and machine, with the machine sometimes being the main focus of capability. In the field of aviation, the phrase ‘human factors’ is a term of art that means ‘the application of scientific knowledge, mostly from the human sciences of psychology, anthropology, physiology and medicine, to the design, construction, operation, management and maintenance of products and systems’. It is intended to reduce human error in the operation of aviation systems (see Australian Transport Safety Bureau, A Layman’s Introduction to Human Factors). ‘Human factors’ is therefore very different to the ‘human element’ discussed in the US Army White Paper which refers to enhancing human performance through building a resilient and adaptable force. Noting the unpredictability of the future strategic environment, and the fact that the enemy will not fight as we would like, adaptability of the human element of capability is imperative. HR McMaster, in The Human Element: When Gadgetry Becomes Strategy, argued that ‘[t]he human and psychological dimensions of war, along with the friction and uncertainty generated when opposing forces meet, invariably frustrates even the most elaborate and well-considered attempts to predict the effects of discrete military actions’. As the IED/counter-IED evolution throughout the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has demonstrated, the enemy is adaptable and technological advantage can be overcome through human ingenuity and an understanding of the enemy’s pressure points. William Saletan, in How to Defeat the Drones, provides some further examples.

So what does this all mean? Culturally, air forces are arguably more technologically focused than the army and navy. While a technology focus has the advantage of maintaining an eye on modernisation, and ensuring that an air force remains ahead of its potential adversaries, it has the disadvantage of neglecting the human element of capability. The 5th generation fighter has been heralded as a game changer, but its reliance on cutting edge technology and a reliable communications network are also vulnerabilities (and I haven’t even talked about the software and other difficulties that have plagued the project and caused delivery delays). By comparison, the Mark I human brain, when developed to the requisite level, is difficult to hack and much more resilient. Indeed, the ‘man’ in the historical loop of warfare cannot be disregarded in favour of technology. While the ‘bling’ of Joint Strike Fighter is difficult to resist (at least for the airmen amongst us), the truth is that an understanding of the technical aspects of 5th generation fighters cannot — ever — replace the need to appreciate the Shakespearean: that human frailty is an enduring theme and is a large part of politics, diplomacy and war. Despite all the technological developments that drive changes in how wars are fought, the fact remains that war is a human endeavour.