Leaders in the Army are backing off the rapid pace of new purchases they have made over recent years, and they are warning soldiers that depending solely on artificial intelligence will not carry a fight. On Monday, General Christopher LaNeve, who serves as the acting chief of staff while holding the position of Army vice chief, said the service’s wide drive toward drones, AI and other new technology has been advancing too quickly. He argued the Army must slow down and choose its fights carefully instead.
“There was a lot, a lot of motion,” LaNeve said. “It was almost like everything was being transformed at once.” He added, “You can’t AI yourself to be the best maneuver brigade commander out there.”
New technology was pushed quickly into formations through the Army Transformation Initiative, and experimentation was encouraged throughout the service. Sgt. Maj. of the Army Michael Weimer said that this experimentation produced necessary learning, even as he insisted the service had reached a point where it needed to “drop the chalk line and actually start making some decisions.”.
Blueprint and Its Priorities
The Army is preparing to unveil “How the Army Fights,” a new framework that will turn years of experimentation into a more focused set of decisions about what technology the service will prioritize, where it belongs in Army formations and how the force will organize and spend for future wars.
The blueprint states plainly that the Army cannot and should not modernize everything at once. “The answer is focused modernization,” it reads. LaNeve said, “If you ask me what my number one modernization priority would be, I would say command and control.”
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Blueprint title | “How the Army Fights” |
| Pacing threat | China’s People’s Liberation Army |
| Modernization priority | Command and control |
| Current leader roles | LaNeve: acting chief of staff (Army vice chief); Telle: Acting Army Secretary |
Asked what was being left “on the cutting room floor” as the service narrows its focus, LaNeve said, “I’m not sure we’re prepared to say what we’re cutting out now.”
The blueprint identifies China’s People’s Liberation Army as the “pacing threat” and says the Army must organize, train and equip against it with the same institutional focus Cold War-era leaders brought to the Soviet Union. It assumes a future major war could reach much closer to home, warning that the U.S. homeland can no longer be treated as a sanctuary, with adversaries potentially using cyberattacks, sabotage and drones to disrupt ports, airfields and other infrastructure.
New Leadership Team
Dan Driscoll stepped down last month after months of reported friction with War Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Acting Army Secretary Adam Telle has since taken over. Telle, a former Trump White House aide, was named days later to lead the Army in an acting capacity. He received public praise from Hegseth as “strong and whip smart.”.
Telle explained that “How the Army Fights” serves as a means of imposing greater coherence on the service’s modernization efforts amid rapid technological change on the battlefield. He likened individual weapons and technologies to ornaments on a Christmas tree and stated, “How the Army Fights is really the tree to hang those ornaments on.”
The plan notes that autonomous systems allow Soldiers to destroy and disrupt, yet it makes clear these machines cannot take the place of a Soldier’s own judgment, leadership, and physical presence when it comes to controlling the land and securing gains.
What the Army Is Saying
The Army has invested heavily in new tools and let units test them out for years, according to LaNeve. Now, however, it needs to focus its efforts rather than scatter its attention across too many priorities. Command and control takes precedence, and the Army must organize itself around China as the principal threat.
The blueprint’s language reflects that caution. “The Army cannot and should not modernize everything at once,” it reads. “The answer is focused modernization.”
New leadership within the Army is pointing toward a move away from quick acceptance of new things toward more selective choice. The goal is no longer to be a service that attempts every new thing and ends up skilled at none of them, but rather a service that chooses its battles and wins them.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs a narrow focus on disclosing hidden safety failures in military AI purchases and is against any federal licensing regime that would lock out smaller defense contractors from competing with the established giants. The Army’s stated plan to slow its rush toward new technology, including AI, is a matter of pace, not a retreat from the technology itself.
LaNeve’s comments that the Army was moving too fast and that “you can’t AI yourself to be the best maneuver brigade commander out there” point toward a sensible pause rather than a ban. The blueprint’s emphasis on focused modernization, with command and control as the top priority, is consistent with that approach.
What the paper wants to watch for is whether the Army’s caution becomes a moat rather than a safeguard. Narrow rules against hiding safety failures would be fine; a licensing regime that only the biggest contractors can afford would be wrong. The Army should choose its fights carefully, not freeze its competitors out.
Key Facts Box
- LaNeve is the Army vice chief serving as acting chief of staff
- Weimer is the Sgt. Maj. of the Army
- Telle is the Acting Army Secretary
- Driscoll was the former Army secretary, who resigned last month
- The blueprint title is “How the Army Fights”
- The pacing threat is China’s People’s Liberation Army
The Army has no intention of giving up on artificial intelligence or autonomous systems. The point, however, is that these technologies are viewed as methods rather than goals, and that the true objective remains victory in combat, not possession of the newest hardware.
Source material: “Emerging tech has new Army leaders warning troops can't ‘AI’ their way to victory on the battlefield,” Fox News.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.