The Fetish of Force: Why Weapons Are Not Just “Instruments” of War

E-International Relations | Julien Pomarède

The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have exposed the fundamental flaws of the dominant instrumental conception of weapons, which routinely frames armaments as mere tools to achieve political objectives. This framing, rooted in Clausewitzian theory, obscures how modern weapons generate mass destruction and cycles of retaliation that override human intent.

Historically, this technological fetishism has driven military planning since World War I, where escalating firepower was mistakenly viewed as a solution to strategic deadlock. Brute force is an ideology. From the carpet bombings of the Korean War to modern algorithmic targeting in Gaza, military establishments consistently conflate technological advancement with strategic efficacy, ignoring the political utility of restraint. This technocentric vision prioritizes statistical optimization of firepower over political or ethical restraint, resulting in prolonged devastation and civilian casualties. Ultimately, this persistent reliance on kinetic dominance fails to resolve instability, instead accelerating environmental degradation and perpetuating systemic global violence.

Comment

The integration of algorithmic targeting systems, such as the Israel Defense Forces' Habsora platform, represents a profound doctrinal shift that prioritises target generation speed over strategic discrimination. This automation of the IDF kill chain treats precision not as a means of operational restraint, but as a mechanism to accelerate kinetic throughput. Political control is lost. Consequently, the traditional Clausewitzian feedback loop between political objectives and military violence is severed by the sheer velocity of automated target production.

This rapid target generation places an unsustainable strain on tactical logistics and munitions stockpiles, as seen in the high consumption rates of precision-guided munitions during the Gaza campaign. Ultimately, the reliance on automated systems like Habsora forces military commanders into a state of dependency on continuous industrial resupply from allies like the United States.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If the deployment of automated targeting systems like Habsora continues to accelerate kinetic throughput beyond the capacity of human oversight, does the traditional Clausewitzian framework of war as a rational political instrument remain viable, or does military violence become an autonomous process?

The trajectory indicates that platforms like Habsora shift the operational focus from political calibration to sheer industrial efficiency. My assessment is that this transition effectively decouples tactical execution from strategic utility, as the speed of target generation outpaces the cognitive capacity of decision-makers to assess long-term political fallout. Consequently, military violence risks becoming a self-perpetuating loop of destruction rather than a controlled instrument of statecraft.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here