Newt Gingrich and Jonathan Guyer on How Drones and AI Are Transforming Modern Warfare.
The nature of warfare is changing at extraordinary speed. In Ukraine, inexpensive drones that began as modified consumer technology have evolved into sophisticated weapons responsible for a significant share of battlefield strikes. Iran has demonstrated another disruptive reality: relatively inexpensive drones can force an adversary to respond with interceptors costing millions of dollars. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is increasingly being integrated into military operations, even as much of the American public remains unaware of how extensively these technologies are already being used.
On this episode of Newt’s World, Newt Gingrich talks with Jonathan Guyer, program director at the Institute for Global Affairs at Eurasia Group, about what these developments could mean for the United States and the future of warfare. Their conversation moves from the rapid experimentation taking place in Ukraine to the economics of defending against Iranian drones, the potential lessons for China and Taiwan, and whether America’s enormous defense establishment can adapt quickly enough to a battlefield increasingly shaped by smaller, cheaper, and smarter weapons. The larger question is not simply what the next generation of warfare will look like. It is whether the United States is learning the lessons unfolding in front of it quickly enough.
Listen to their conversation below, or scroll down for an edited transcript.
Edited Transcript
This conversation has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Newt Gingrich
I want to start with the Ukraine-Russia war and how much technology has evolved since the war began in February 2022.
I recently visited Wiesbaden and talked with a number of officials. They have daily feeds of video from Ukraine, and they were describing a speed of change and innovation that was way beyond anything the United States is currently capable of.
Back in 2022, Ukrainians were buying hobby quadcopters online and dropping grenades from them. Now you have a totally different level of sophistication. The Ukrainians estimate their drones account for 60 to 70 percent of all hits on Russian targets.
How do you assess what is evolving and how fast it is moving?
Jonathan Guyer
This is a fundamental question about the role of technology in war. We have been seeing this evolution since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, with real ingenuity coming from Ukrainians and American startups and companies going over there and testing new technologies.
But Ukraine is only one theater where this is happening. We’ve also seen advanced AI technologies used in Gaza, and the United States is using AI technologies in the war with Iran.
What I’m really interested in is how much this is penetrating the American public. The Institute for Global Affairs recently conducted a survey asking Americans whether they were aware that AI was being used in the war with Iran.
Only 8 percent said they were aware that the U.S. military was using AI for war, while 40 percent had no idea AI was being used on the battlefield.
These technologies are being used right now in different wars and contexts, but I think the American public ought to know a whole lot more about it.
Newt Gingrich
If you had a chance to brief the average American, what would you tell them?
Jonathan Guyer
First, I would say our lawmakers need to know a whole lot more.
These are new technologies, and lawmakers need to play a bigger oversight role. The Pentagon’s technology and AI leadership also needs to speak directly to the public.
We should learn some lessons from the expansion of drone warfare. Drones became ubiquitous, but there was never really a broad public conversation about what their use meant or whether unmanned warfare could make entering conflicts easier.
Obviously, the military needs the best technologies. But we also need oversight, and we need to make sure the public is informed.
Newt Gingrich
The Ukrainians and Russians seem to be adopting very different strategies.
The Ukrainians are trying to target economically sensitive areas, often with strikes hundreds of miles deep. The Russians, on the other hand, appear to be using something closer to a World War II-style strategy of striking cities and infrastructure.
Are we watching two remarkably different strategies?
Jonathan Guyer
We’ve certainly seen this evolve over the course of the conflict.
Ukraine has demonstrated how much strength a smaller country can generate relative to Russia. But the question of civilian infrastructure is important.
According to our latest polling at the Institute for Global Affairs, 56 percent of Americans say attacking civilian infrastructure is morally unacceptable.
That raises larger questions about what it means to fight wars consistent with American values and about maintaining the rules of war as these technologies evolve.
Newt Gingrich
From Gaza to Ukraine and now Iran, it seems as though we are seeing a consistent pattern of civilians being caught in increasingly destructive conflicts.
In some ways, despite all the modern technology, it feels as though we’ve gone back toward the kind of warfare we saw during World War II.
Jonathan Guyer
That’s exactly the contradiction.
We have these extraordinary new technologies, but in some respects it feels like we’ve gone back a century.
That’s where lawmakers, lawyers, ethicists, watchdogs, and elected officials need to be paying attention. We can have the most advanced technologies in the world, but we still have to think seriously about how they are used.
Newt Gingrich
My sense is that wars become more violent and cause more civilian damage the longer they go on.
Jonathan Guyer
And they become more difficult to solve.
That’s one of the common threads across these conflicts. They are very different wars, but the human costs rise as they continue.
One thing our polling is showing is that Americans are connecting foreign policy with what is happening at home. In our late-August YouGov survey of 1,000 Americans, eight in 10 respondents associated rising costs of living with the costs of the war with Iran.
That suggests people aren’t necessarily separating the cost of war from the realities of their pocketbooks.
Newt Gingrich
I think there are two important points.
First, long wars become increasingly difficult to sustain in a free society because public opinion matters.
Second, the president has not adequately explained the war to the American people. If the country believed American cities were directly at stake, people might tolerate a much greater level of frustration.
Instead, many people look at the confusion surrounding the conflict, then look at gasoline and diesel prices, and conclude that something isn’t working.
Jonathan Guyer
Our polling does show movement in public opinion.
About three-quarters of Republican voting-age Americans in our survey continue to support the war, but we saw a 15-point decline in strong support. We also saw a 13-point increase in disapproval among independents.
Those shifts could become important as voters consider foreign policy alongside domestic economic concerns.
Newt Gingrich
Let’s turn to Iran.
How has Iran taken the cheap-drone model into the Persian Gulf? What is different about the sophistication and types of drones we’re seeing there?
Jonathan Guyer
Iranian technologists and military organizations have become very good at adapting relatively inexpensive technologies.
That creates an asymmetric challenge. Iran does not necessarily have the most advanced technology, but it has been able to use lower-cost systems to threaten much more expensive military infrastructure.
That raises serious questions about how the United States plans for these conflicts and how it allocates resources.
Newt Gingrich
This is the part I have difficulty understanding.
Why would you use a Patriot interceptor costing around $4 million against an Iranian drone costing roughly $35,000?
What am I missing?
Jonathan Guyer
The calculus is extraordinary.
It may be a wake-up call not just for defense contractors, but for planners, strategists, and futurists.
We need to rethink how technology is used in war. It doesn’t make sense to continually use incredibly expensive systems against much cheaper threats, even though those inexpensive drones can still be extremely destructive.
It raises a larger question about how wars are planned in the first place.
Newt Gingrich
Drones have really come into their own as both battlefield weapons and weapons that can threaten infrastructure.
Doesn’t that require us to develop defensive drones that cost roughly the same amount as the attacking drones, rather than bankrupting ourselves trying to stop them?
Jonathan Guyer
Absolutely.
There are emerging technologies designed to stop drones by disrupting their communications or using radio-frequency technologies.
Another challenge is drone swarms, where dozens or even hundreds of drones can approach a target simultaneously. We’re seeing versions of that play out in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
The wars of the future are here.
There has been enormous discussion about hypothetical future dangers from AI, but AI technologies are already being used to empower drones and other unmanned systems in Iran, Gaza, and Ukraine.
This is a discussion the public needs to be part of.
Newt Gingrich
Ukraine has reportedly developed an interceptor drone called the Sting that costs around $2,000.
Why would we use Patriot interceptors costing millions when systems like that can potentially be produced for a fraction of the price?
Jonathan Guyer
Part of the problem is that it is very difficult for the U.S. military to be nimble and evolve.
Several administrations have tried to bring experimental approaches, startups, venture capital, and private-sector technologists into defense and national security.
But ultimately, the Department of Defense is an enormous institution, and making change when the rubber hits the road on the battlefield can be very difficult.
There is an inertia toward using the big systems rather than experimenting with more nimble and less expensive technologies.
Newt Gingrich
That’s the challenge.
Defense systems should be built from the battlefield back so that they relate to the real world.
I have a sense that somewhere between bureaucracy and the influence of very large companies, we are stuck in a model that is increasingly obsolete.
There are disruptive technologies emerging in Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere that threaten huge elements of the current system.
Jonathan Guyer
And it’s often easier to build another layer of the military-industrial complex than it is to solve the actual battlefield problem.
The real goal should be finding solutions that protect U.S. service members and make Americans safer.
Newt Gingrich
Let’s talk about the conflict everyone is thinking about and hoping never occurs: China and Taiwan.
I suspect both China and Taiwan are studying the lessons of Ukraine and Iran and considering how those lessons could affect the defense of Taiwan against a potential amphibious invasion.
What are the key lessons?
Jonathan Guyer
I would start with the fact that wars are full of unexpected consequences.
Even the most meticulously planned war can have devastating costs. There is no guarantee of a clean, quick, and easy war.
That’s an important lesson from Ukraine and other recent conflicts.
For Taiwan, experimental technologies could play an important role, along with diplomacy and strong international partnerships.
But the larger point is that a war between China and Taiwan is not inevitable. Leaders have an enormous responsibility to prevent it because wars tend to spiral in unexpected ways, creating economic and human consequences far beyond the battlefield.
Newt Gingrich
The proliferation of unmanned systems, both aerial drones and seaborne systems, could also make an invasion of Taiwan riskier.
In that sense, these technologies might increase deterrence.
Jonathan Guyer
China’s leaders can certainly study what has happened to Russia.
What was expected by Moscow to be a much easier conflict has stretched on for years and imposed enormous costs.
The effects of these wars extend far beyond the governments fighting them. They are felt by economies, civilians, service members, and voters.
Newt Gingrich
When you look 10 or 15 years into the future, could increasingly capable and inexpensive weapons begin making enormously expensive aircraft carriers and aircraft less sustainable?
Jonathan Guyer
That’s a fascinating question.
We’re already seeing maritime drones, submarine-style drones, and other unmanned technologies develop.
I don’t think aircraft carriers, fighter jets, or satellites are going to disappear overnight. The U.S. military is a very large institution and tends to move more slowly.
But when you look at the technologies being displayed and developed today, the possibilities are remarkable.
And we don’t have the complete picture because so much defense procurement and military technology remains classified.
Newt Gingrich
What worries me is that some existing systems could become obsolete on the battlefield at a moment when we won’t have time to recover from learning that lesson the hard way.
Let me finish with one question.
If you could put one recommendation in front of Congress and the Pentagon, what would it be?
Jonathan Guyer
I think we need to return to the question of congressional war powers.
Our polling at the Institute for Global Affairs shows that 61 percent of voting-age respondents want Congress to play a bigger role in foreign policy.
Congress has a constitutional role here, and there should be more oversight and more conversation between the legislative and executive branches when it comes to war and providing arms to allies and partners.
We’ve been polling Americans about war powers for roughly five years, and support for a larger congressional role has continued to grow.
Newt Gingrich
Jonathan, thank you for joining me.
You can read Jonathan Guyer’s new report, War President: The Iran Trap, from the Institute for Global Affairs, and you can listen to his podcast, None of the Above, wherever you get your podcasts.
This has been very educational, and I really appreciate you joining me.
Jonathan Guyer
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a real honor to be with you today.
About the Guest
Jonathan Guyer is program director at the Institute for Global Affairs at Eurasia Group, where he leads the organization's Independent America program examining U.S. foreign policy and America's changing role in the world. He hosts IGA's None of the Above podcast and is a contributing editor at The American Prospect. He previously served as a senior foreign policy writer at Vox and managing editor of The American Prospect.
Latest from America’s New Majority Project
You can manage your subscription preferences to choose the updates, newsletters, and alerts you want to receive on the website.