Why some experts say the U.S. is in ‘catch up’ mode in the future of war

John Yang:

In a recent address top military leaders, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth laid out his ambitious vision for the Pentagon.

Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense: This urgent moment, of course, requires more troops, more munitions, more drones, more patriots, more submarines, more B21 bombers. It requires more innovation, more AI in everything and ahead of the curve, more cyber effects, more counter UAS, more space, more speed. America is the strongest, but we need to get stronger and quickly.

John Yang:

But questions remain about how the military translates that more of everything vision into reality, especially as technologies like drones and AI rapidly transform the battlefield. Ali Rogin spoke with retired Army Colonel Ken Gleiman, the editor in chief of Small Wars Journal and a professor at Arizona State University.

Ali Rogin:

Thank you so much for joining us. We know that a big priority for the military right now is finding out which innovations to invest in. So what are some of the benefits of new technologies like these smaller, more agile, cheaper to develop drones, and what are some of their drawbacks?

Col. Ken Gleiman (Ret.) Editor-In-Chief, Small Wars Journal: When we're talking about inexpensive but potentially lethal or highly capable systems, I mean, one of the great benefits is that they are attritable and that they don't cost a lot and they can be used on the battlefield, of course, without risking the life of an individual human.

We are seeing this incredible innovation cycle in the current conflicts. And I think part of the issue that the U.S. is facing right now is that we are so used to these more expensive boutiques, systems that take a long time to develop and that we can't afford to lose.

So the question for the U.S. right now is how to get these types of systems that are less expensive, that are highly, as I said, attributable and expendable.

Ali Rogin:

And does that mean that the US Is really in catch up mode when it comes to investing in these types of innovations?

Ken Gleiman:

I think the U.S. is in catch up mode, certainly, depending on who you're comparing the U.S. to when it comes to these types of systems that you're talking about. The U.S. may have some really great systems and technology around, but actually having the supply chains and the innovation chains and the procurement systems to build, acquire, and then to integrate these systems into formations, I mean, I think that's where most experts would agree the U.S. is pretty far behind.

The U.S. has had a tradition of having these, as I said, very expensive, very exquisite systems. And now the defense community is seeing the need to change and to change rapidly.

Ali Rogin:

Are tools like AI and drones, though, fundamentally changing the nature of warfare?

Ken Gleiman:

The nature of war remains the same and remains constant, but the character of warfare is what changes over time. And it changes partly because of technology, but also trends in human society. And so I think these current conflicts, for example, in Ukraine, if anything, they remind us of the constant nature of warfare, that it is a human endeavor and that it is filled with violence and chance and suffering for those involved.

But we are seeing some differences in the ways that wars are fought. And I think that drones, autonomous systems, AI, these are things that we're starting to see a bit more of.

Ali Rogin:

What lessons can and should the military be learning from current conflicts like Israel, Gaza, like Russia, Ukraine?

Ken Gleiman:

I mean, we're seeing incredible adaptation in the war in Ukraine. That's happening in weeks, not months or years. Innovation is happening between battles, not between campaigns or over the course of the year. And that rapid innovation cycle, changing the way units are formed, the way they fight, the tools they used, it's actually quite hard to keep up with that.

So I think one of the most important lessons that the U.S. is trying to learn is how do we replicate that before you have the pressure, the necessity that happens within armed conflict? How do you create institutions that can rapidly adapt and then scale different capabilities that become important in the conflict?

I think that is one of the most surprising lessons. And we've seen Ukraine be able to do that, and we've actually seen Russia a little slower, but be able to do that as well.

Ali Rogin:

And Secretary Hegseth has talked about needing more of basically everything. More troops, more big weapons, more nimble weapons, more strength. Is that realistic for a Defense Department which is well funded but still has finite resources?

Ken Gleiman:

Every Secretary of Defense faces this sort of giant dilemma, which is one that I think is best framed between the decisions of three things that all cost money and time, and that's readiness, modernization, and capacity. You want your forces to be ready for the kind of conflict you think they're going to face. You want them to be modernized so that they are ready for what's next and not behind. And then you want to have the capacity to fight the wars that you think you need.

Everything's a trade off. The more you spend on readiness, you might not be able to spend on modernization. The more you spend on modernization, you might not be able to afford the capacity you need.

So yes, you know, wanting more is, is clearly the temptation. But the real strategic choices come in how you do those three things. But even the U.S. with its tremendous defense budget is, as you said, quite limited in resources. And the answer cannot be just more, more.

Ali Rogin:

Colonel Ken Gleiman, editor in chief of the Small Worlds Journal, professor at Arizona State University, thank you so much for joining us.

Ken Gleiman:

Thank you. It's a pleasure.