Secretary Pete Hegseth’s directive to trim 20% of the four-star ranks is a necessary first step, but it risks becoming another exercise in “reorganizing the deck chairs” if the underlying architecture of the Generating Force isn’t fundamentally dismantled.
In the Operating Force, specifically within organizations like JSOC, we have already proven that flattening works. When an O-6 commander reports directly to an O-9 to achieve strategic effects, the “flash to bang” is instantaneous. Yet, in the Generating Force—the massive machine responsible for training, equipping, and sustaining the military—we’re doubling down on Consolidation instead of Flattening.
The Consolidation Trap: T2COM and PAEs
The recent standing up of T2COM (Transformation and Training Command) and the transition to Portfolio Acquisition Executives (PAEs) are touted as revolutionary. In reality, they are “Ghost Echelons.” By merging disparate commands into “super-portfolios,” we aren’t removing layers; we’re merely hiding the same number of flag officer staffs under a single roof.
The logic of the current reform implies that rank equates to competence—a fallacy reinforced by the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA). For decades, the Generating Force has served as a sanctuary for those whose career paths hit a ceiling in the Operating Force. Under DOPMA’s “up-or-out” mandate, we’re forced to create high-ranking “oversight” positions to justify the careers of generalists, creating a friction-rich environment where an O-7 or O-8 must “concur” on technical decisions that a SOCOM O-5 would handle solo.
AI: The Staff-Killer for the Generating Force
The primary output of the Generating Force isn’t lethality, but paperwork intended to mitigate risk. In 2026, this is a role for Artificial Intelligence, not egos. Secretary Hegseth’s “Wartime AI Footing” must move past the concept of AI as a “tool” and recognize it as an eventual replacement for legacy echelons.
However, this transition requires a shift from Human-in-the-loop (manual processing) to Human-on-the-loop (validation and oversight).
- The G-3/5/7 (Operations & Planning): For decades, these staffs have ballooned to manage the “Adaptive Staff Model”—parsing doctrine and drafting OPLANs. With the deployment of Enterprise Agents via GenAI.mil—a secure, LLM-based architecture that utilizes Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to ground outputs in verified military doctrine—we now have the capability to generate and “Red Team” thousands of Courses of Action (COAs) in seconds. When an AI can parse 25 years of tactical doctrine and current sensor data to draft a deployment order, the requirement for a battalion of O-5 “Action Officers” to sit in planning cells evaporates.
- ATEC (Army Test & Evaluation Command)/ NOSSA (Naval Ordnance Safety & Security Activity): Organizations like ATEC and NOSSA have traditionally acted as the “bureaucratic brake” on materiel solutions. Their manual oversight can be replaced by Computational Wargaming and Continuous T&E. This process utilizes high-fidelity digital twins and Monte Carlo simulations to run millions of virtual stress tests against a new materiel solution, identifying safety and cost risks before a single piece of hardware is built. We no longer need a massive staff of “naysayers” to spend years producing a test report that the Operating Force needed yesterday.
- The G8 (Budget & Programming): The manual labor of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) cycle is perhaps the greatest drain on military talent. AI-driven “Mission Alignment” reviews—which utilize predictive analytics to cross-reference contract performance against real-time operational requirements—can now automate this entire process, identifying “budget bloat” and non-performing programs in real-time. If an algorithm can perform a 99.9% accurate audit of a $20 million contract in minutes, the need for layers of “Budget Analysts” to manually justify every line item is gone.
Addressing the Risk: A Phased Transition
The pushback against AI adoption often centers on data integrity—the fear of “poisoned” data or incomplete sets. These are valid risks, but they are not justifications for maintaining a bloated bureaucracy. In a flattened model, the human’s role shifts from data-entry and initial analysis to final arbiter of high-stakes outputs.
- Validation, Not Re-Work: The human “on-the-loop” serves as the fail-safe against data poisoning, reviewing AI-generated COAs for logical fallacies or adversarial influence without needing a 400-person staff to re-create the data from scratch.
- The Competence Standard: By utilizing the JSOC model, we place this validation authority in the hands of an O-6 Portfolio Lead who possesses the domain expertise to spot anomalies—removing the “Ghost Echelons” of generalists whose primary function is checking boxes rather than verifying lethality.
By eliminating the “Ghost Echelons” of risk-averse middle management, we don’t just save money; we remove the friction that has allowed our adversaries to out-pace us in the “Gray Zone”. The 20% reduction Hegseth is seeking shouldn’t just be the goal—it should be the starting point for a total automated gutting of the Generating Force.
The Choice: Lethality or Liability?
If the Department of War truly wants to return to a “Warrior Ethos,” it must stop treating the Generating Force as a personnel management exercise. We do not need fewer PEOs; we need zero PEOs/PAEs. We need direct-reporting Portfolio Leads who answer to a Service Secretary—unfiltered, un-staffed, and empowered by AI-driven risk assessment focused on cost and safety.
As long as we allow DOPMA to dictate our organizational charts, we’re trading strategic relevance for procedural safety. True reform isn’t about moving the flag officers to Austin; it’s about removing the need for the flags altogether.
Stephen D. Cook is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces Lieutenant Colonel with 25 years of service. A combat veteran decorated for both heroism and valor, he is the author of the field manuals “Plan Like a Green Beret,” and “Finding Your Way in the Dark,” and the techno-thriller “In the Shadows of the Sky.” His work explores the intersection of elite military decision-making, intuition, and disruptive leadership. He is based in St Augustine, FL.
This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.
