On troops' wish-list: weapons that avert civilian casualties.

• Author: Erwin, Sandra I.
• Position: DEFENSE WATCH

* The Gates Doctrine--based on the principle that the wars we are in are the ones we must win--is shaking up the status quo in the weapons-buying business.

Expensive, "exquisite" weapons that take decades to design and build are being spumed in favor of no-nonsense equipment that troops need today to fight insurgencies and various other forms of low-intensity conflict.

The icons of the Gates Doctrine are well known: mine-resistant armored trucks, unmanned spy aircraft, helicopters.

But there are still other irregular-combat weapon needs that are not talked about much. A recent Pentagon-funded study reveals that one of the biggest difficulties that U.S. troops face in current conflicts is that they lack nonlethal alternative weapons that they can use in situations when they need to take forceful action without harming civilians. The study, written by a group of researchers from the Rand Corp., describes this as a "void between lethality and inaction" that often results in no-win situations.

"American generals like to say that the purpose of U.S. forces is to fight and win the nation's wars. But they and the rest of us know that nowadays it is not that simple," says the 169-page report: "Underkill: Scalable Capabilities for Military Operations Amid Populations."

U.S. commanders have been frustrated by the political damage that comes from killing, injuring, or terrifying civilians. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza, armed militants hide in dense populations, challenging--practically daring--U.S., coalition, or Israeli forces to attack. "Enemy propagandists have a field day when counterinsurgency forces kill or injure innocent people," the study says.

U.S. officials have concluded that the United States cannot afford to take the attitude that civilian casualties are unfortunate but unavoidable.

Rand examined what "nonlethal capabilities" might be useful for today's wars. These weapons are standard in law-enforcement missions but have not been widely used by the military. "We all have unpleasant images of tear gas, firehoses, batons and robber bullets," Rand says. Such crude nonlethal weapons are inadequate for today's military missions, notes the study. "The possibility of injuries being captured on film, in cell-phone snapshots, or on satellite TV places a premium on capabilities that are less easily depicted as cruel or brutal."

The Defense Department has been developing nonlethal weapons for decades, but the technology has not lived up...