In the fast-paced world of modern warfare, the U.S. Army faces an urgent challenge: effectively translating battlefield insights into actionable processes and operational strategies. The gap between observing emerging threats and integrating those lessons into command structures and decision-making protocols reflects a systemic vulnerability in military preparedness. Bureaucratic inertia delays critical knowledge transfer — leaving operational units ill-prepared for rapidly evolving combat environments. The result is a significant lag between identifying and implementing new tactics — making the Army vulnerable to outdated strategies.
Advancements in technology and the increased complexity of modern battlefields have magnified this issue. Adversaries continue to develop innovative tactics and deploy cutting-edge technologies, often at a pace that exceeds the military’s ability to adapt. Addressing this gap is imperative to ensure the U.S. Army remains agile, informed, and capable of responding effectively to emerging threats. The Army could enhance operational efficiency and maintain a decisive edge in contemporary warfare by fostering a streamlined process for translating data into action.
Parallels can be drawn here to the defense industry’s struggle to produce and replenish munitions and equipment at speeds relevant to modern warfare. As slow production pipelines hinder operational readiness, the current knowledge transfer methods are equally lagging. This delay in transferring battlefield insights to the training environment fails to “produce” soldiers with up-to-date knowledge of challenges, tactics, techniques, and procedures critical to modern conflict. Addressing these deficiencies requires a comprehensive reformation of the information transfer processes — mirroring the reforms urgently needed within the defense manufacturing sector.
Gaps in Current Systems
While the Center for Army Lessons Learned and Training and Doctrine Command’s Directorate of Intelligence G-2 initiatives play vital roles in gathering and disseminating battlefield insights, they face limitations that hinder their effectiveness in rapidly evolving conflict scenarios. The Center for Army Lessons Learned often relies on post-operational debriefs, which, while comprehensive, delay the integration of new intelligence into actionable strategies. Similarly, Training and Doctrine Command’s G-2 initiatives are constrained by hierarchical structures and bureaucratic bottlenecks that rely on both the intelligence community and the combatant command’s intelligence and analysis, making them ill-suited for addressing time-sensitive challenges.
For instance, during conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the slow adoption of strategies countering improvised explosive devices exemplified how delays in knowledge transfer could hinder operational effectiveness. These systems struggled to process and disseminate emerging adversary tactics quickly enough to adapt to the changing battlefield environment by delaying official doctrine. By integrating real-time commercial feedback loops and leveraging transformation in contact brigades as pilot units, these gaps could be bridged effectively — allowing for faster adoption of innovative strategies.
Complementary Pathways for Knowledge Transfer
To address these gaps, three interconnected approaches — commercial entities, foreign veterans, and international military advisors — could enhance the Army’s ability to process and disseminate critical information. Each pathway offers unique strengths to build a more effective and adaptive knowledge transfer ecosystem. These solutions, when integrated, create a robust system designed to overcome the inherent inertia of traditional military structures, ensuring that lessons learned on the battlefield are rapidly and effectively utilized across the force.
Commercial Entities: Enhancing Real-Time Adaptation
Commercial entities provide a dynamic solution to improving information transfer processes. Unburdened by traditional military bureaucracy, these teams could swiftly analyze emerging threats, develop adversary profiles, and simulate scenarios for Army leadership. Their ability to integrate real-time insights into decision-making frameworks ensures that lessons learned on the battlefield are quickly translated into actionable intelligence or form a red team for training scenarios where the commercial entities could replicate evolving battlefield threats in training environments ranging from home station training to larger combat training center rotations.
For example, while traditional military units may struggle to replicate new electronic warfare tactics, commercial entities could rapidly identify and simulate these innovations — allowing leadership to test countermeasures and refine strategies. Companies like Top Aces, Coastal Defense, and RAVN have already demonstrated the effectiveness of this model by enhancing situational awareness and operational readiness in other branches of the military. By operating independently of rigid command hierarchies, these entities provide flexibility and agility in addressing complex challenges.
By leveraging the expertise of commercial entities, the Army could create a continuous feedback loop between intelligence gathering, training, and operational planning. This collaboration could begin with the issuance of requests for proposals by key stakeholders, such as Training and Doctrine Command and Forces Command, to identify innovative solutions for replicating emerging threats and tactics in training environments. These requests for proposals would serve as a mechanism for engaging commercial providers to develop targeted capabilities and integrate cutting-edge technologies into Army training systems.
This process ensures commanders have the most up-to-date information available, enabling them to make informed decisions under rapidly changing conditions in both training and operational environments. Additionally, commercial providers could pilot emerging technologies and methodologies as part of a red team approach, offering critical insights into their practical applications before broader adoption. This ensures that new tools and strategies are validated in real-world conditions, minimizing the risks associated with untested innovations.
Veterans of Recent Wars: Experiential Knowledge Carriers
Americans and citizens from NATO member states who have volunteered in conflicts such as the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War could bring invaluable firsthand experience to improve the Army’s information processes. They possess practical knowledge that is often absent in doctrinal training material, as well as recent on-the-ground knowledge of evolving threats, tactics, and strategies.
For example, their understanding of adversary behavior and the application of emerging technologies could inform intelligence processes and confirm or deny assumptions about enemy tactics, techniques, and procedures, enhancing the accuracy and relevance of actionable insights. Veterans also bridge the gap between tactical and strategic domains — providing a holistic understanding of battlefield dynamics.
These veterans also offer a critical opportunity to bridge the gap between tactical units and strategic command. By participating in post-operation debriefs and intelligence reviews, they could provide direct feedback on the effectiveness of current protocols and suggest improvements. This iterative process ensures that lessons from the field are quickly incorporated into broader operational strategies. Furthermore, such veterans could serve as mentors and trainers, imparting their knowledge to newer generations of soldiers while fostering a culture of adaptability and innovation within the force.
International Military Advisors: Global Perspectives
Foreign military advisors from nations actively engaged in high-intensity conflicts could provide critical insights to enhance the Army’s processes. Their understanding of how adversaries adapt to modern combat conditions enables U.S. forces to anticipate challenges and refine operational approaches. Advisors from allied nations, such as NATO partners, offer unique perspectives shaped by their regional expertise and firsthand experience in combating near-peer adversaries.
International advisors could contribute to improving processes through direct collaboration with Army leadership. By participating in intelligence briefings and operational planning sessions, they could highlight areas where existing protocols may fall short. Their real-time knowledge ensures that the Army’s framework remains responsive to the dynamic nature of modern warfare. Advisors’ insights often extend beyond tactical considerations, encompassing strategic and political dimensions that influence military operations. This broader perspective ensures that decision-makers are better equipped to address multifaceted challenges.
Furthermore, international advisors foster a culture of collaboration — strengthening ties between allied forces on top of efforts already made via American support to partners with the security force assistance brigades. This exchange of knowledge not only enhances the Army’s strategic outlook but also ensures interoperability in multinational operations. By leveraging the expertise of international partners, the Army could develop more nuanced and comprehensive strategies. These partnerships also build trust and cohesion among allied nations — reinforcing collective security objectives and enhancing the effectiveness of joint operations.
Integrated Knowledge Transfer: A Holistic Approach
The most effective solution is not to choose one pathway but to integrate all three. By combining commercial entities, foreign veterans, and international advisors, the Army could create an adaptive ecosystem that accelerates knowledge transfer. This integrated approach ensures that lessons from the field are quickly analyzed, disseminated, and applied across the chain of command. The collaboration among these pathways amplifies their benefits — creating a cohesive system that prioritizes continuous learning and improvement.
For example, insights from foreign advisors could inform commercial provider simulations, while the experiences of foreign veterans could provide additional context for refining operational protocols. This interaction enhances the Army’s decision-making processes — ensuring that strategies remain aligned with the realities of modern combat. By fostering collaboration among these diverse contributors, the Army could cultivate a more resilient and adaptable force capable of addressing complex challenges.
Implementation Through Transformation in Contact Brigades
The transformation in contact brigades presents an ideal framework for piloting this integrated approach. These brigades are uniquely suited to adopt a phased implementation strategy designed to accelerate knowledge transfer. The phased approach would include three distinct phases over 18 months:
Setup Phase (6 months)
The Army could establish an Other Transactions Authority at Training and Doctrine Command or Forces Command to serve as a rapid acquisition funding stream, enabling the prototyping of these new processes. Once established, the Army could designate transformation-in-contact brigades as testbeds, form partnerships with key stakeholders such as commercial entities and international advisors, and implement analytics tools to collect baseline data.
Execution Phase (12 months)
The Army could then implement updated training methodologies, tactics, and tools while collecting real-time feedback from training and operational environments.
Evaluation Phase
The Army could then analyze outcomes to refine processes, identify the best practices, and develop scalable solutions for broader Army adoption via transition from a prototype other transaction authority to a production other transaction authority or a standard federal acquisition regulation-based acquisition.
These brigades serve as incubators for innovation, allowing the Army to experiment with innovative technologies and see how recent lessons learned pair with new technologies to influence tactics and techniques before scaling them across the broader force.
Through focused experimentation, the transformation in contact brigades could identify best practices for improving information transfer and operational efficiency. These lessons could then be scaled across the broader force — ensuring that the entire Army benefits from enhanced decision-making frameworks and adaptive strategies. By aligning these efforts with ongoing modernization initiatives, the Army could create a seamless integration of new capabilities and operational processes — ensuring that soldiers are equipped to succeed in diverse and dynamic environments.
Closing the Knowledge Gap
As Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Randy George, commander of Training and Doctrine Command Gen. Gary Brito, and Sgt. Maj. of the Army Michael Weimer have said, “Successful armies are learning organizations that quickly adapt imaginative solutions.” The fact is, however, that soldiers have too few tools available to them to understand a world packed with major change —including tactics, techniques, and procedures, as well as technology. Soldiers need new ways to receive and access high-fidelity information and experts who understand these changes, so they can learn, generate solutions, and iterate on them in training. This is in line with the Army Learning Concept for 2030-2040, which states that soldiers need “experts and authoritative sources for learners at the point of need” that includes “operational force reach to proponent subject matter experts in support of [multi-domain operational] requirements.”
By integrating commercial entities, foreign veterans, and international advisors, the Army could create a responsive and agile knowledge transfer ecosystem. This approach not only enhances operational readiness but also ensures that the Army remains capable of adapting to the unpredictable nature of contemporary conflicts.
Just as the defense industry needs to reform its production pipelines to remain viable in modern warfare, the Army must reimagine its methods of transferring knowledge from the battlefield to the training environment.
Failure to adapt risks creating a force unprepared for the realities of current and future conflicts. By embracing these transformative pathways, the Army could close the knowledge gap and cultivate a culture of continuous improvement. In an era of rapid technological advancements and evolving threats, this approach represents a critical step toward ensuring the Army’s long-term effectiveness and success. Through collaboration, adaptability, and innovation, the Army can secure its position as a global leader in military operations and preparedness.
Daniel Vazquez is a U.S. Army officer and a 2013 graduate of Norwich University’s Corps of Cadets. Commissioned as an infantry officer, he has served in Stryker, Light Infantry, and Security Force Assistance formations and most recently as an Innovation Officer for XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Liberty, NC. The views and opinions described in the paper are his and do not reflect the official position of XVIII Airborne Corps, the U.S. Army, or any part of the U.S. government.
Image: Lara Poirrier via DVIDS.
Jesus Christ is King
