Command Without Control

Military Review | Prabhat Mishra

United States and Israeli military operations against Iran recently deployed the Maven Smart System to fuse over 170 intelligence sources, processing more than 1,000 strike targets within 24 hours. This rapid algorithmic targeting mirrors Ukraine’s AI-enabled drone networks, which previously compressed sensor-to-shooter linkages from hours to seconds. Algorithmic speed reshapes operational decision-making.

As machine-curated courses of action proliferate, commanders increasingly face high-tempo environments where automated recommendations displace human reflection while full legal accountability remains unchanged. War-gaming at the US Army War College demonstrated that staff officers frequently succumb to cognitive anchoring, accepting flawed AI options despite operational errors. Similarly, the US Army Command and General Staff College issued Bulletin 921 in August 2025 to restrict unsanctioned generative tools among field-grade officers. Ultimately, integrating artificial intelligence without continuous human oversight risks creating command without control, delegating core operational intent to automated systems optimized for velocity rather than strategic wisdom.

Comment

Algorithmic decision support fundamentally alters the operational mechanics of mission command established in ADP 6-0 by transforming commander's intent from an active generative principle into a passive filtering threshold. When platforms like the Maven Smart System present pre-prioritised targeting packages under extreme time compression, staff officers default to evaluating algorithmic confidence scores rather than formulating independent operational concepts. This cognitive shift converts decentralized execution into automated compliance, replacing human synthesis with machine-curated outputs. The doctrinal assumption that lower-echelon commanders exercise disciplined initiative weakens when data aggregation is centralized at higher command nodes.

This erosion occurs through the institutionalisation of cognitive anchoring during staff exercises and operational planning. As observed during US Army War College war games, planning staffs consistently adopt initial machine-generated courses of action as absolute baselines rather than provisional recommendations. Consequently, staff validation cycles under CGSC Bulletin 921 standards focus on checking algorithmic formatting errors rather than challenging the operational assumptions underlying automated strike recommendations.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If operational velocity forces commanders to rely on platforms like the Maven Smart System for time-sensitive targeting, how can headquarters staff preserve the exercise of disciplined initiative defined in ADP 6-0 without degrading sensor-to-shooter speeds?

The available evidence points toward an emerging structural contradiction where maintaining high-tempo targeting forces staffs to treat algorithmic recommendations as binding operational baselines. Rather than preserving decentralized initiative, staff processes naturally pivot toward validating automated outputs against rigid procedural parameters. My assessment is that preserving genuine human command will require deliberate operational pauses and doctrinal firewalls that intentionally trade peak execution speed for critical human oversight.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here