Lt. Gen. Rick Lynch lost 155 men in combat. 122 might have lived, if only the U.S. had sent a bigger, badder, better-capable robot army in Iraq. "80 percent of those soldiers didn't have to die," he told a recent trade conference.

To start with, Lynch would like to see some remote-controlled infantry-bots deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. Manufacturers started making the gun-toting machinesyears ago. But there's been a reluctance to send the things to war, because of safety and command and control concerns.

Lynch, the new chief of the Army's Installation Management Command, lead the 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq and has a masters in robotics from MIT. He told National Defense magazine that the robo-fears are unfounded.

"There’s a resistance saying that armed ground robots are not ready for the battlefield. I’m not of that camp," Lynch said.

The general first made the comments in August. I missed them, because I was in Afghanistan myself.

Lynch would also like to see some of the trucks in a military convoy driven my machines, instead of by troops or contractors. "Why in the world does every cab have to be occupied by a human being?” he asked. “Why can’t we just have the lead vehicle manned? I’ve seen that technology demonstrated many times over the last 20 years, but it’s still not fielded." The kind of technology could also give tanks "robotic wingmen," multiplying the armored vehicles' power, without putting more troops in dangerous positions.

Lastly, National Defense notes, Lynch would like to see robotic grunts keep watch over improvised explosive device (IED) hotspots.

He said seven soldiers under his command were killed and three were captured because they were out watching IED hotspots. “That didn’t have to happen.” Robots can take the soldiers’ places, he said. They can continuously keep watch on an area, and if nefarious activity is spotted, “We can take appropriate action. … We can kill those bastards before they plant the IEDs,” he added.

[Photo: Qinetiq North America]

ALSO: