In an operational environment where artificial intelligence (AI) and cutting-edge big data promise to revolutionize command and control (C2), leaders may be tempted to believe that decision superiority is simply a matter of adopting the latest system. But technology alone cannot replace judgment. The Army’s advantage will not come from algorithms that generate optimal solutions, but from commanders who understand their tools, challenge their assumptions, and make timely, informed decisions.

This article argues that while AI-enabled systems can accelerate decision making, leaders must remain the fulcrum of C2. To illustrate this, we examine three critical themes: the importance of data and system literacy, the myth of the optimal solution, and the human factors that determine whether technology succeeds or fails in practice. Before leaders at any echelon or in any domain commit to the next game-changing product, they must revisit the fundamentals of decision making. Battles are still won through timely, informed decisions, not by data alone.

Data and System Literacy: A Leader’s Imperative

Even the most advanced AI-enabled C2 solution is only as good as the data that powers it. Leaders must not only consume the data but also understand the systems, both customized and enterprise, that generate and feed it.

Modern battle command systems often involve layers of automation and human input. Without contextual knowledge of these systems, leaders risk making decisions based on incomplete or misleading information. Advanced systems promise to integrate every warfighting function, which on its face sounds like an ideal situation, but without careful management, a staff can quickly become overloaded with information and be unable to interpret the information properly, resulting in paralysis by analysis.

Decision fundamentals and data fundamentals are interdependent. Commanders must assess whether the data reflect reality, whether the sensors and processes that are produced by it are reliable, and whether the resulting picture is timely enough to influence action.

The Myth of the Optimal Solution

There is a tendency to assume that more data and better algorithms will yield an optimal solution and that optimality alone ensures success. In reality, command environments are constrained by both technology and human factors. Command posts are already saturated with information. Adding AI-generated recommendations without filtering or prioritization can overwhelm decision-makers. The military decision-making process and rapid decision-making and synchronization process are designed to integrate judgment, accountability, and doctrinal rigor. Over-automation risks bypassing the critical human layer of operational art.

Optimal solutions must be treated as starting points, not prescriptions. Leaders must be empowered to deviate when the tactical situation demands it.

The Human Factor: Training and Implementation

Technology adoption often fails not because of bad code, but because of insufficient training and sustainment preparation. The sustainment community, frequently the first to feel the effects of poor C2, continues to face challenges in communications, equipment knowledge, and system integration.

AI cannot compensate for units that lack proficiency in executing decisions once they are made. Leaders must invest in building teams that understand not just the what but also the why behind the data. This starts with the root source, such as a 92A Automated Logistical Specialist inputting mileage and hours for vehicle and maintenance data. Integrated AI tools mean nothing if the data are suspect. Building trust is critical to both tool development and integration and actual implementation.

Acknowledging the Counterargument

Advocates of data-driven operations are correct in asserting that AI and analytics can illuminate blind spots and uncover patterns invisible to humans. Predictive analytics can forecast maintenance issues, detect supply chain vulnerabilities, and propose optimal resource allocation. Most recently the 4th Infantry Division has even shown that Next Generation C2 can save valuable time by facilitating quicker identification, processing, and target neutralization for their artillery units.

But leaders must resist the temptation to outsource judgment to algorithms. Data are inputs, not decisions themselves. Commanders are still responsible for assessing risk, weighing context, and making the final call, often under pressure and with incomplete information.

Recommendations

Use AI as an accelerator, not a decider. Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 3-13, Information, Figure 1-1, Cognitive hierarchy, reminds leaders that data progress through stages: data → information → knowledge → understanding. Data form the foundation, representing unprocessed facts. We recommend the sustainment community adopt a more precise definition of data as what is pulled from a system of record. Information occupies the middle layers, turning the base data into information and sometimes knowledge through aggregation, pattern detection, or simulation. These middle layers require analysis that we believe can be classified as using a system or tool to visualize, analyze, or otherwise clarify raw data, such as Vantage, Microsoft Excel, Maven, or the Lead Materiel Integrators-Decision Support Tool. Many of these systems come with AI and machine learning tools built in, without explicit guidance or intent.

With this clarification, we can teach that data, or base data, in the sustainment community only reference systems of record, and then focus on the understanding of how these systems work. Subsequently, information, or generative data, like tools within Vantage, can instructionally be taught to understand how the coding of the presentation tool is created to interpret the base data. These nuances are frequently what Army leaders fail to understand.

But as ADP 3-13 makes clear, understanding is reached only when leaders apply judgment. It is the commander’s experience, visualization, and intent that elevate knowledge into understanding and enable decisive action.

Figure 1-1, Cognitive hierarchy, from Army Doctrine Publication 3-13, Information.

This doctrinal lens reinforces that AI-enabled systems can accelerate decision making, but they do not replace it. Base data may tell us what is happening, and generative data may suggest why it is happening or predict what might happen next, but only a human commander can determine what must happen.

Key Takeaways

  • Leaders must remain at the center of C2, using AI and data as accelerators, not replacements, for judgment.
  • Invest in data and system literacy so commanders can critically assess and effectively leverage technology.
  • Treat AI-generated solutions as starting points, empowering leaders to adapt and make context-driven decisions.

Conclusion

The future of C2 will undoubtedly include AI and increasingly sophisticated data solutions. Technological advantages are incredibly important, but the Army, especially the sustainment community, must avoid the trap of assuming technology alone will deliver decision advantage. Investments in leader education must be an imperative.

Success in future conflicts will depend not on the elegance of our algorithms, but on the clarity, speed, and quality of decisions made by human leaders. Ultimately, victory is achieved in the decision, not in the data.

--------------------

MAJ Jonathan Shackelford has served as a forward support company commander and various other staff positions in the 1st Armored Division. He has recently served at Army Sustainment Command as a theater logistics planner in the support operations shop on behalf of U.S. Army Materiel Command. He has worked with Headquarters, Department of the Army; U.S. Army Forces Command; and U.S. Army Pacific Command on multiple projects, issues, and future plans for Class VII. He has a master’s degree in supply chain management from Virginia Commonwealth University.

CPT David Lilly is a Command and General Staff Officers Course student. He was commissioned in the Infantry from East Tennessee State University in 2015. He served as a group leader and analyst for the Logistics Captains Career Course. His prior roles include forward support company commander, battalion S-3, and positions within the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. His military schooling includes the Infantry Basic Officer Leadership Course, Stryker Leader Course, Logistics Captains Career Course, NATO Logistics Course, and Joint Logistics Planners. He holds degrees in exercise and sport science, supply chain management, and business analytics.

--------------------

This article was published with the winter 2026 issue of Army Sustainment.

RELATED LINKS

Army Sustainment homepage

The Current issue of Army Sustainment in pdf format

Current Army Sustainment Online Articles

Connect with Army Sustainment on LinkedIn

Connect with Army Sustainment on Facebook

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------