A close friend of mine who is currently serving in the reservists has a strange habit. He sends me pictures of his boots every time he returns from his rotation up north. It’s not just a snapshot of a fun moment during a break or activity. Only his military boots, covered in mud and untied, sat next to the tent.
When I asked him why he wore boots, he said: “Even though we have artificial intelligence and innovation going on almost all day long, at the end of the day, most of the important work here is still done on foot.”
1 View gallery
In mid-March 2026, the Israel Defense Forces announced that its troops had begun targeted ground operations in southern Lebanon as part of the expansion of the forward defense perimeter along the northern border. The move brought terms like “safe zone” and “forward defense area” back into public life, emphasizing simplicity above all else. There are moments when soldiers have to walk in, take up positions, search homes, secure routes, and just be there.
Artificial intelligence has not made the human body unnecessary. Layers of computation, sensors, and analytics have been added, but they won’t replace what’s happening at the edge of the battlefield. The above includes intelligence systems, satellites, data processing, and sometimes remote attack capabilities. The photo below shows a person wearing a helmet, holding a weapon, and feeling anxious every time he walks through the mud.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. Every day, I work with the most advanced technology ever created by humanity: systems that can identify patterns, map information, identify cross-reference sources, and support rapid decision-making. In the military and intelligence context, this translates into faster detection and response times and, in some cases, a “cleaner” operational situation than in the past.
From there, it’s a short slide into the illusion that war can be managed like a control room. From far away. Through the screen. There is a glowing dot on the map. with the sense that the battlefield is being “mapped” and therefore “controlled”.
And then reality – in Lebanon and Gaza – comes and slams the door in front of us. It literally drags us back into the mire.
A quote often quoted by Albert Einstein is, “We don’t know what kind of weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” It comes up repeatedly in discussions about the fear of escalation that could wipe out the world as we know it.
In the age of automated systems, that fear takes on new forms. The issue is not just firepower, but speed as well. Some researchers and security officials have warned of rapid escalation caused by systems of calculation and response, reducing decision-making times to the point where human restraints become ineffective.
In that sense, the decision to keep people in the loop, even if it is costly, is not just for operational reasons. It is also an attempt to maintain the possibility of accountability, judgment, and restraint if the programmed system continues into the future.
Muddy boots are not romantic. They are a reminder that someone still carries both that price and that decision inside of them.
Technology can provide firepower remotely, sometimes with high precision, sometimes on a large scale. However, there are limits to what can be remotely “solved” against an enemy embedded within civilian populations, operating within civilian infrastructure, and operating in trenches underground.
Artificial intelligence operates based on probability and statistics, but definitive results on the ground require context. Machines cannot understand the meaning of a raised flag, the look in the eyes of a Lebanese villager, or the changing mood of the people on the other side. The “boots” here are sensors that cannot be replaced by satellites.
Additionally, political and legal constraints limit the use of force. This arises sometimes from considerations of international legitimacy, sometimes from international law, and sometimes from a basic understanding that excessive destruction has long-term strategic costs. Within this framework, the military repeatedly relies on something old: physical presence. Not because they don’t understand the future, but because there are tasks that remote firepower cannot accomplish and will never replace.
Smart systems operate based on probabilities. They rate, rank, and recommend. While this is great for analysis and support, the battlefield is a place where any decision can be changed by intent, fear, or even the smallest movement of a trembling hand.
The deeper problem is not just identification. It’s a responsibility. Decisions about life and death, such as whether to shoot or hold the gun, or whether to search a family’s home, do not end with “accuracy.” It ends with the signatures, the commanders, the soldiers, the legal system, and the society that decides what to accept. We cannot hand over the burden of that responsibility to a probabilistic model and treat it as a solution.
Another danger of viewing war through a screen is that it looks pretty. There is no smell. There are no stains. Don’t cry. The data is there. That doesn’t necessarily make it less violent. Sometimes that expansion is possible because it feels far away.
Keren Chahar And once our adversaries understand this, they adapt to break their dependence on technology. It goes underground. It reduces its signature. Operate in environments with complex communication and discovery. This does not mean that satellites will be completely invisible, but it does mean that there are clear physical limits to what can be observed and analyzed in real time below the surface of the earth.
After all, when you look at the photo of the boots, you will understand why the friend sent them. This is not a complaint regarding condition. That’s the conclusion. In a world moving toward systems that promise automation and control, these boots remind us that decisions on the ground are still left to humans, and that stepping into the mud is not a technical failure, and that technology cannot replace it.
Keren Shahar is a lecturer and instructor on the use of artificial intelligence.
