Don’t Build A Combatant Command Around A Tool

BusinessAerospace & DefenseDon’t Build A Combatant Command Around A ToolByDavid A. Deptula,Contributor.Forbes contributors publish independent expert analyses and insights. I write on defense, strategy, the profession of arms, and aerospace.Follow AuthorJun 15, 2026, 06:30am EDTCurrent Combatant CommandsImage DoD (2025)The ProposalThe U.S. military is right to accelerate the development and fielding of systems that harness autonomy and artificial intelligence (AI). These capabilities will be essential to deterring and, if necessary, defeating advanced adversaries. They can extend reach, complicate enemy targeting, reduce risk to personnel, increase desired effects, and help commanders sense and strike at machine speed.But the Senate Armed Services Committee’s recently announced legislation to create a new combatant command for robotic and autonomous systems gets the problem backward. According to public reporting, the provision would centralize control over the acquisition and operation of uninhabited vehicles under a four-star general officer leading a new combatant command. The instinct is understandable. The Department of Defense/War is still moving too slowly in fielding affordable, attritable, autonomous, and AI-empowered capabilities at scale. Congress is right to press for urgency.However, the proposed combatant command is ill-conceived. Organizing operational control around a class of technology would sub-optimize joint force operations. It confuses a tool with the mission.Warfighting should be organized around objectives, effects, and campaigns—not platforms, weapons, or categories of hardware. Autonomous and AI-empowered vehicles do not constitute an independent theory of victory. They are but one means to an end. They help commanders find, fix, track, target, engage, assess, maneuver, protect, sustain, and communicate. However, their military value is realized only when they are integrated into a broader joint concept of operations.The right question...