Integrated Research Projects

Follow

• 

  Understanding, Deterring, and Preparing for a Great-Power War in the Twenty-First Century

  Antulio J. Echevarria II, Larry P. Goodson, and Brennan Deveraux

  The US government and the US Army are unprepared for a great-power war. This integrated research project (IRP), sponsored by Vice Chief of Staff of the Army General James J. Mingus, is a critical first step in helping senior US Army leaders increase their knowledge of, and preparations for, deterring or fighting a great-power war in the twenty-first century. No one knows how long the US government and the US Army have to prepare for a future conflict. Consequently, the US Department of Defense faces difficult decisions as it balances preparing for a future war with maintaining readiness to address current challenges. The student research in this IRP only scratches the surface of what the US Department of Defense and the US Army should do to understand, deter, and prepare more effectively for the possibility of a great-power war in the twenty-first century. While the steps outlined here are preliminary, they are not tentative. Readers will find that each chapter offers concrete, actionable recommendations based on duly considered analysis. But more work lies ahead.

• 

  Integrating Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Technologies into Common Operating Picture and Course of Action Development

  C. Anthony Pfaff and Christopher John Hickey

  C. Anthony Pfaff and Christopher John Hickey, Principal Investigators

  ©2025 C. Anthony Pfaff. All rights reserved.

  Integrating Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Technologies into Common Operating Picture and Course of Action Development explores the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to revolutionize military planning processes by enhancing situational awareness and expediting course of action development within the Joint planning process. The study delves into technical, organizational, and resource considerations that are critical for AI integration. In addition, the study highlights the importance of clean, structured data in training AI systems, addresses challenges in data collection across varying formats and classifications, and emphasizes the need for AI-friendly infrastructure. By automating processes like common operational picture generation and leveraging AI for course of action analysis, military planners can achieve greater efficiency and decision-making speed. Furthermore, this publication underscores the challenges of ethical implementation, resource sustainability, and organizational adaptation, including upskilling personnel and integrating commercial vendors. Case studies, such as the Maven Smart System and STORMBREAKER, demonstrate AI’s ability to enhance data fusion, improve battlefield awareness, and streamline operational planning. This research provides a robust framework for overcoming barriers to AI adoption, enabling the US military to harness AI technologies for enhanced planning, decision making, and operational success.

• 

  Emerging Technologies and Terrorism: An American Perspective

  In a world where technology is rapidly advancing and available to the masses, companies and policymakers face a daunting reality—non-state actors are using innovation for sinister purposes. While artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous systems promise enhanced threat detection, terrorist groups are exploiting these tools for recruitment and attacks. The future is concerning as AI becomes more widespread and autonomous systems and augmented reality redefine society.

  A groundbreaking report is born from a collaboration between NATO COE-DAT and the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. This book unveils a grim forecast that terrorists are poised to exploit advances in artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, augmented reality, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. The line between reality and fiction blurs in the age of rapid technological evolution, urging governments, industries, and academia to unite in crafting ethical frameworks and regulations. As geopolitical tides shift, NATO stresses national responsibility in combating terrorism and advocating for collective strength against the looming specter of technology-driven threats. However, questions linger. Can regulatory frameworks keep pace with technological innovation? Will industry prioritize ethical considerations over profit margins?

  Contributors

  Darrin L. Frye, Sarah Lohmann, Paul J. Milas, Michael W. Parrott, Susan Sim, Steve S. Sin, Kristan J. Wheaton

  Chapter 1: ©2024 Susan Sim. All rights reserved.

  Chapter 2: ©2024 Sarah Lohmann. All rights reserved.

  Chapter 5: ©2024 Steve S. Sin. All rights reserved.

• 

  A Call to Action: Lessons from Ukraine for the Future Force

  John A. Nagl and Katie Crombe

  John A. Nagl, Project Director
  Katie Crombe, Chief of Staff

  This book explores the changing character of war through the lens of the Russia-Ukraine War. The authors analyze the conflict’s history, each side’s warfighting functions, the role of multidomain operations, and more. The radical changes in the character of war suggest the United States is at a strategic inflection point. The authors draw lessons from both the Ukrainians and the Russians to suggest improvements for the United States. Advances in drone technology, cyber warfare, and electromagnetic warfare pose new technological vulnerabilities and possibilities. In addition, the war has highlighted the roles of allies in deterrence and training as well as how leadership styles within the military—specifically, in the implementation of mission command—can be a decisive factor. As the Russia-Ukraine War has demonstrated, modern conflict touches a plethora of domains; thus, having sufficient personnel who are ready to fill a variety of capacities will be critical in the future. Finally, the war has shown history and justice are critical aspects of going to war and achieving peace, so crafting a narrative and satisfying stakeholders will be necessary for establishing a stable world order. The Russia-Ukraine War foreshadows the challenges the United States will face in future conflict and highlights the keys to adapting to modern warfare.

  Researchers: Gabriella N. Boyes, John “Jay” B. Bradley III, Larry D. Caswell Jr., Steven L. Chadwick, Jingyuan Chen, Jason Du, Brian A. Dukes, Volodymyr Grabchak, Matthew S. Holbrook, Clay M. Huffman, Rebecca W. Jensen, Jamon K. Junius, Thomas R. Kunish, Jason R. Lojka, Albert F. Lord Jr., Syeda Myra Naqvi, Dennis M. Sarmiento, Vincent R. Scauzzo, Povilas J. Strazdas, Marlon A. Thomas, Stephen K. Trynosky, Darrick L. Wesson, Sean M. Wiswesser

  Interns: Max Blumenfeld, Bridget Butler

• 

  The Future Role of Strategic Landpower

  Philip F. Baker, Gregory L. Cantwell, Timothy L. Clark, Gregory R. Foxx, Justin M. Magula, Curtis S. Perkins, Kirk A. Sanders, Timothy A. Sikorski, and Carl L. Zeppegno

  Recent Russian aggression in Ukraine has reenergized military strategists and senior leaders to evaluate the role of strategic Landpower. American leadership in the European theater has mobilized allies and partners to reconsider force postures for responding to possible aggression against NATO members. Although Russian revisionist activity remains a threat in Europe, the challenges in the Pacific for strategic Landpower must also be considered. At the same time, the homeland, the Arctic, climate change, and the results of new and emerging technology also challenge the application of strategic Landpower. This publication serves as part of an enduring effort to evaluate strategic Landpower’s role, authorities, and resources for accomplishing the national strategic goals the Joint Force may face in the next conflict. This study considers multinational partners, allies, and senior leaders that can contribute to overcoming these enduring challenges. The insights derived from this study, which can be applied to both the European and Indo-Pacific theaters, should help leaders to consider these challenges, which may last a generation. Deterrence demands credible strategic response options integrated across warfighting functions. This valuable edition will continue the dialogue about addressing these issues as well as other emerging ones.

• 

  Trusting AI: Integrating Artificial Intelligence into the Army’s Professional Expert Knowledge

  C. Anthony Pfaff, Christopher J. Lowrance, Bre M. Washburn, and Brett A. Carey

  Integrating artificially intelligent technologies for military purposes poses a special challenge. In previous arms races, such as the race to atomic bomb technology during World War II, expertise resided within the Department of Defense. But in the artificial intelligence (AI) arms race, expertise dwells mostly within industry and academia. Also, unlike the development of the bomb, effective employment of AI technology cannot be relegated to a few specialists; almost everyone will have to develop some level of AI and data literacy. Complicating matters is AI-driven systems can be a “black box” in that humans may not be able to explain some output, much less be held accountable for its consequences. This inability to explain coupled with the cession to a machine of some functions normally performed by humans risks the relinquishment of some jurisdiction and, consequently, autonomy to those outside the profession. Ceding jurisdiction could impact the American people’s trust in their military and, thus, its professional standing. To avoid these outcomes, creating and maintaining trust requires integrating knowledge of AI and data science into the military’s professional expertise. This knowledge covers both AI technology and how its use impacts command responsibility; talent management; governance; and the military’s relationship with the US government, the private sector, and society.

• 

  Enabling NATO’s Collective Defense: Critical Infrastructure Security and Resiliency (NATO COE-DAT Handbook 1)

  Carol V. Evans, Chris Anderson, Malcom Baker, Ronald Bearse, Salih Biçakci, Steve Bieber, Sungbaek Cho, Adrian Dwyer, Geoffrey French, David Harell, Alessandro Lazari, Raymond Mey, Theresa Sabonis-Helf, and Duane Verner

  In 2014 NATO’s Centre of Excellence-Defence Against Terrorism (COE-DAT) launched the inaugural course on “Critical Infrastructure Protection Against Terrorist Attacks.” As this course garnered increased attendance and interest, the core lecturer team felt the need to update the course in critical infrastructure (CI) taking into account the shift from an emphasis on “protection” of CI assets to “security and resiliency.” What was lacking in the fields of academe, emergency management, and the industry practitioner community was a handbook that leveraged the collective subject matter expertise of the core lecturer team, a handbook that could serve to educate government leaders, state and private-sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, academicians, and policymakers in NATO and partner countries. Enabling NATO’s Collective Defense: Critical Infrastructure Security and Resiliency is the culmination of such an effort, the first major collaborative research project under a Memorandum of Understanding between the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute (SSI), and NATO COE-DAT.

  The research project began in October 2020 with a series of four workshops hosted by SSI. The draft chapters for the book were completed in late January 2022. Little did the research team envision the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February this year. The Russian occupation of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, successive missile attacks against Ukraine’s electric generation and distribution facilities, rail transport, and cyberattacks against almost every sector of the country’s critical infrastructure have been on world display. Russian use of its gas supplies as a means of economic warfare against Europe—designed to undermine NATO unity and support for Ukraine—is another timely example of why adversaries, nation-states, and terrorists alike target critical infrastructure. Hence, the need for public-private sector partnerships to secure that infrastructure and build the resiliency to sustain it when attacked. Ukraine also highlights the need for NATO allies to understand where vulnerabilities exist in host nation infrastructure that will undermine collective defense and give more urgency to redressing and mitigating those fissures.

• 

  Contested Deployment

  Bert B. Tussing, John Eric Powell, and Benjamin C. Leitzel

  As indicated in the 2018 National Defense Strategy and evolving Multi-Domain Operations doctrine, the assumption the homeland will provide a secure space for mobilization and deployment is no longer valid. This integrated research project goes beyond affirming this assumption and contributes to efforts to mitigate the concerns a contested deployment entails.

  Following the introductory chapter, Chapter 2, “Army Deployments in a Contested Homeland: A Framework for Protection,” explores how current coordination and cooperation mechanisms between the DoD and state and local government may need realignment, with civil authorities preparing themselves to support military mobilization. Chapter 3, “Strategic Seaports and National Defense in a Contested Environment,” examines the 22 strategic seaports across the United States, identifying issues with throughput, structural integrity, security, readiness, funding, and authorities. Chapter 4, “Single Point of Failure,” identifies how strict adherence to a business efficiency model for munition production and distribution may jeopardize the successful employment of military forces. Chapter 5, “The Interstate Highway System: Reinvestment Needed before a Contested Deployment,” provides the status of the deteriorating road network and explains how associated vulnerabilities could be exploited by an adversary. The two appendices provide points for consideration on cyberattacks and defense and the impacts a full mobilization of reserve forces would have on the homeland.

• 

  At Our Own Peril: DoD Risk Assessment in a Post-Primacy World

  Nathan P. Freier Mr., Christopher M. Bado Colonel (Ret.), Christopher J. Bolan Dr., and Robert S. Hume Colonel (Ret.)

  The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) faces persistent fundamental change in its strategic and operating environments. This report suggests this reality is the product of the United States entering or being in the midst of a new, more competitive, post-U.S. primacy environment. Post-primacy conditions promise far-reaching impacts on U.S. national security and defense strategy. Consequently, there is an urgent requirement for DoD to examine and adapt how it develops strategy and describes, identifies, assesses, and communicates corporate-level risk. This report takes on the latter risk challenge. It argues for a new post-primacy risk concept and its four governing principles of diversity, dynamism, persistent dialogue, and adaptation. The authors suggest that this approach is critical to maintaining U.S. military advantage into the future. Absent change in current risk convention, the report suggests DoD exposes current and future military performance to potential failure or gross under-performance.

• 

  Outplayed: Regaining Strategic Initiative in the Gray Zone, A Report Sponsored by the Army Capabilities Integration Center in Coordination with Joint Staff J-39/Strategic Multi-Layer Assessment Branch

  Nathan P. Freier, Charles R. Burnett, William J. Cain Jr., Christopher D. Compton, Sean M. Hankard, Robert S. Hume, Gary R. Kramlich II, J. Matthew Lissner, Tobin A. Magsig, Daniel E. Mouton, Michael S. Muztafago, John F. Troxell, Dennis G. Wille, and James M. Schultze

  U.S. competitors pursuing meaningful revision or rejection of the current U.S.-led status quo are employing a host of hybrid methods to advance and secure interests contrary to those of the United States. These challengers employ unique combinations of influence, intimidation, coercion, and aggression to incrementally crowd out effective resistance, establish local or regional advantage, and manipulate risk perceptions in their favor. So far, the United States has not come up with a coherent countervailing approach. It is in this “gray zone”—the awkward and uncomfortable space between traditional conceptions of war and peace—where the United States and its defense enterprise face systemic challenges to U.S. position and authority. Gray zone competition and conflict present fundamental challenges to U.S. and partner security and, consequently, should be important pacers for U.S. defense strategy.