During a training exercise at Fort Lewis, Washington, in 2015, a soldier from the less favorable computer regiment of the Army participated. (US Army image)
In Washington, as per a US Army source, Ukraine has been labeled as “the graveyard of command posts.” In this era of drones, large headquarters become prime targets, and precise strikes have led to the downfall of numerous Russian generals.
Consider a hypothetical scenario where China, known for its System Destruction Warfare doctrine targeting high-tech centers with long-range missiles and cyber assaults, faces off against the United States with its significant Combined Air Operations Centers (CAOCs).
Alexander Kott, an expert in artificial intelligence who has worked with DARPA and the Army, expressed concerns about the vulnerability of traditional command structures. He highlighted the risks associated with concentrating personnel in fixed locations, stating, “You could place 100 individuals, including staff officers and officers, in a cluster of buildings and hope for survival.” He further emphasized the outdated nature of current command posts, likening them to a mix of cars, radios, and buildings. The swift destruction witnessed in conflicts like the one between Russia and Ukraine indicates the limited lifespan of such setups.
Sidharth Kaushal, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London, echoed similar sentiments about the Western command systems, noting their centralization around key nodes like CAOCs. The concept of “systems loss warfare” underscores the inherent instability of such centralized systems.
While acknowledging the potential for AI to enhance command structures, Kaushal cautioned that advancements in processing power are shifting decision-making authority towards centralized networks.
The shift towards consolidated control and autonomy at the tactical level brings about various implications, including the adoption of diverse AI technologies and the need for different administrative approaches. Amid the rapid global dissemination of new technologies, particularly software, the United States stands to benefit from its adaptable social structures.
However, complacency is unwarranted. The Pentagon faces challenges with top-down governance, alternative paths to development beyond the American model exist, and indications from Taiwanese military literature suggest a push for greater autonomy.
Dean Cheng, a leading expert on China at the US Institute of Peace, highlighted the historical precedent of authoritarian regimes like the Nazis demonstrating innovation in times of necessity. He debunked the notion that authoritarianism hinders innovation, citing examples such as the Blitzkrieg, assault rifles, and missiles developed by such regimes.
Kott, who served as the chief scientist at the Army Research Lab until last year, expressed disappointment in the lack of innovation in British military practices. He criticized the trend of creating expensive and siloed communication systems, emphasizing the need for more efficient and integrated solutions.
Paparo, commander of the Pacific Fleet, emphasized the importance of swift action, drawing lessons from China’s military strategies observed during the Ukraine conflict.
Authoritarian regimes like China exhibit a robust discourse on defense theory akin to historical powers like the Soviet Union and Germany during past conflicts.
Kevin Pollpetter, a seasoned research professor at CNA, highlighted China’s focus on “informatization,” aiming to decentralize decision-making to lower levels. However, the actual implementation of such concepts remains debatable.
RAND researcher Nathan Beauchamp-Mustafaga noted the evolving role of AI and emerging technologies in empowering frontline commanders to make informed decisions. However, the extent of influence these ideas wield over the Chinese defense establishment remains uncertain.
The Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, housing the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC), serves as a critical hub for US Air Force operations. (Photo by Staff Sergeant Riedel, Alexander W., US Air Force)
Balancing Edge and Center
The dichotomy between centralization and decentralization in military command is not absolute but rather a dynamic spectrum that evolves with technological advancements and strategic requirements.
Kott emphasized the necessity of a balanced approach, where advancements in warfare, such as the use of drones by small units, advocate for decentralized decision-making. However, the complexity and reach of modern weaponry, including long-range missiles and cyber capabilities, necessitate centralized coordination at higher echelons.
Kaushal concurred that there is a valid argument for empowering theater commanders with AI-driven data processing capabilities to enhance decision-making efficiency.
The concept of super-CAOCs equipped with advanced AI systems to centralize data from across the battlefield offers a compelling vision of centralized command and control. While such structures promise unprecedented coordination and situational awareness, they also present vulnerabilities in the event of enemy attacks.
Centralization proves effective during peacetime and enables coordinated responses during conflicts. However, the concentration of critical functions in centralized hubs poses a significant risk in the face of adversary actions.
Kaushal highlighted the inherent vulnerability of centralized structures to adaptive adversaries. He argued that decentralized decision-making at lower levels aligns with the unpredictable nature of warfare, as described by military strategist Clausewitz.
The PLA’s doctrine of “systems damage warfare” focuses on disrupting communication links, including cyber and electronic warfare, to cripple the adversary’s command and control capabilities. This strategy underscores the importance of maintaining resilient communication networks amidst hostile actions.
AI technologies offer solutions to counter disruptions in communication networks, enabling adaptive responses to jamming and other interferences. By leveraging AI algorithms, military networks can autonomously reroute data flows to circumvent disruptions and maintain operational effectiveness.
Moreover, advancements in AI extend beyond centralized command structures to empower frontline units. Technologies like Starlink’s satellite communications facilitate real-time data exchange and decision-making at the tactical edge, reducing reliance on traditional high-orbit satellites.
Dave Sterling, a former NGA scientist, highlighted the transformative impact of Starlink on military operations, enabling agile decision-making and data analysis in remote environments using AI algorithms.
Embracing New Technologies for Military Innovation
Historically, military leaders have leveraged new technologies to enhance traditional tactics and develop innovative strategies. The integration of AI decision-making tools in military operations aims to streamline logistical tasks, strategic planning, and decision-making processes.
Pollpetter described AI as a potential “chief of staff,” capable of generating courses of action and aiding commanders in making informed decisions swiftly. This shift towards AI-driven planning could empower forward command posts to operate with the efficiency of larger headquarters without the bureaucratic constraints.
However, the adoption of AI-driven initiatives requires buy-in from military and political leadership. In China, where the military is closely tied to the Communist Party, decision-making authority remains centralized, limiting the delegation of responsibilities to lower-ranking officers.
The Chinese leadership’s skepticism towards delegating authority suggests a reluctance to embrace decentralized decision-making, presenting a potential vulnerability that can be exploited by more agile and adaptive forces like those of the United States.
