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. 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. These three camps are the leading voices in today’s conflict and defense studies communities, despite dubious records of success.

As a result, Institutionalist thought in Western militaries stays close to maneuver, precision, and technology-centric advocacy. Institutionalists, or those who are socialized to think and speak in their professional organizations’ respective language, tend toward reinforcing their professional institution’s thinking. 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. The Futurist camp, for instance, asserts that drones, artificial intelligence, and cyber are the future of armed conflict. 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. 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. Each of these camps provides value to the study of armed conflict. These camps include the Futurist, Traditionalist, Institutionalist, and Conflict Realism. Not formalized in existing literature, four basic schools of thought exist in the conflict and defense studies fields. The future of armed conflict is a divisive topic in which competing camps and actors grapple to control the narrative.

Prepare for future armed conflict