In a previous episode, we highlighted the Annual Army War College Strategy Competition. This week, host Tom Galvin speaks with a team from the Carlisle Scholars Program that used the competition as the opportunity to experiment with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for strategy formulation. Josh Aldred, Claudio Blardone, Robby Haugh, and Adam Schultz share their expectations and what actually happened and take-aways. Ultimately, the results underscored AI’s potential to improve strategic planning, while also highlighting the continued importance of human oversight and ongoing training.
AI is a powerful tool with huge potential, and the United States, specifically United States military, must be the leaders in this innovation. However, we cannot allow it to do our thinking for us
Podcast: Download
To view the AI models Josh Aldred mention you can find them here:
The GOAT Strategic Planner https://chatgpt.com/g/g-67f932232678819180a1405b5d0ebe58-the-goat-strategic-planner
The dashboard tool used to model the current situation in Kashmir: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/a0dec892-26ca-4964-93b0-e00085ba0582.
Josh Aldred is an Air Force colonel with 22 years of service. He has commanded two squadrons and has served in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Republic of Korea. He earned a Doctorate in Engineering from the University of Texas and will take command of a Mission Support Group this summer.
Claudio Blardone is a colonel in the Italian Army. He is an infantry officer in the Alpini corps (Italian mountain troops) with 25 years of active service. Over the course of his career, he has been deployed multiple times, including to Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Latvia, gaining extensive international experience in both command and staff roles.
Robby A. Haugh is a lieutenant colonel (promotable) and Army Strategic Intelligence officer with 22 years of service, including deployments to Iraq, Bosnia, and Africa. He has held key leadership roles across the Defense Intelligence Enterprise and will soon serve as Director of Intelligence for Special Operations Command Africa.
Adam Schultz is a lieutenant colonel and an Army Field Artillery Officer with deployment experience in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Jordan. He has held leadership positions in FORSCOM, SOCOM, and TRADOC and will next serve in V Corps as the Deputy Fire Support Coordinator.
Tom Galvin is Associate Professor of Resource Management in the Department of Command Leadership and Management (DCLM) as well as the leadership and management instructor for the Carlisle Scholars Program. at the United States Army War College. He is the author of the monograph Leading Change in Military Organizations and companion Experiential Activity Book.
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect those of the Italian Army, U.S. Army War College, U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, or Department of Defense.
Photo Credit: Generated by Gemini
Can AI help us with the critical prerequisite-to-strategy-development task — of identifying, and articulating in certain detail, (a) the well-understood environment, within which, (b) strategies must be considered, developed, deployed, evaluated, etc.?
In this regard, consider the following from about the 30:00 point in the recent/earlier podcast re: the Annual Army War College Strategy Competition — Dr. Perez speaking here:
” … Strategies must be formed within an environment that is well-understood, and that environment includes constraints … ”
As an example of a “well-understood environment” — which AI might use to compare and contrast the well-understood environment of today — consider the following from the Cold War:
“ … The United States and the Soviet Union face each other not only as two great powers which in the traditional ways compete for advantage. They also face each other as the fountain heads of two hostile and incompatible ideologies, systems of government and ways of life, each trying to expand the reach of its respective political values and institutions and to prevent the expansion of the other. Thus the cold war has not only been a conflict between two world powers but also a contest between two secular religions. And, like the religious wars of the seventeenth century, the war between communism and democracy does not respect national boundaries. It finds enemies and allies in all countries, opposing the one and supporting the other regardless of the niceties of international law.” (See Hans Morgenthau’s 1967 “To Intervene or Not to Intervene.”)
Herein, might the AI declare that the well-understood environment of today, this is one that is very different from the well-understood environment of the Cold War; this, given that, today, all the great powers would seem to be on the — generally same — illiberal, multipolar, civilizationism and spheres of influence sheet of music?
(If accurate, what, then, would AI tell us is/are the implications of this such — very different from the Cold War and post-Cold War — well-understood environment; implications which must direct how, why, etc., we consider, develop, deploy, evaluate, etc., our strategies?)
In addition to the matters that I present above, might we also wish to ask the AI to suggest “why” all the great powers (and many others) — and even the U.S. of late — would seem to have embraced such things as illiberalism, multipolarism, civilizationism, etc., today?
As to an answer to that question, might the AI tell us that we should look to such things as the basic strategic need/necessity to “make friends and influence people” — both at home and abroad — something that the tremendous political, economic, social and value changes — demanded by the U.S./the West both at home and abroad post-the Cold War and in the name of such things as capitalism, markets and trade — simply would not allow us (or anyone else for that matter) to do?
(Thus, as to the basic strategic need to “make friends and influence people” — both at home and abroad — nations/great powers, today, must show that they, indeed, are against — and thus are willing to prevent and to roll back — these such post-Cold War unwanted and destabilizing changes? Something that “illiberalism,” etc., will help these nations/great power do?)