Publishing Disclaimer: In all of its publications and products, Military Review presents professional information. However, the views expressed therein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Army University, the Department of the Army, or any other agency of the U.S. government.

Letter from the Editor

Col. Andrew Morgado, U.S. Army

Download the PDF

On 30 April of this year, the secretary of defense issued new guidance to the Department of Defense “to implement a comprehensive transformation strategy” to make the necessary changes to produce a more capable and ready force.¹On the following day, the secretary of the Army and chief of staff of the Army issued joint guidance to the Army that outlined significant organizational and materiel changes that will begin to emerge in the months ahead.² This guidance heralds significant changes to how the Army will organize to carry out its roles and the weapons and equipment it will employ to do so.

Col. Andrew Morgado, U.S. Army
Director, Army University Press

Our modern Army is no stranger to transformation. According to the Congressional Research Service, this is the fifth major transformation undertaken by the Army since 2003.³ In each instance, Army leaders sought to adapt the force to the new realities either experienced on current battlefields or forecasted for future ones. Also common to each period of change was disagreement and debate, some of which played out in the pages of Military Review.⁴ The professional exchange on the pages of this journal and in other forums proved essential in identifying emergent conditions, shaping the direction of changes, and reporting on their progress. This latest round of change offers another opportunity for this fruitful discussion, and we hope our readers and fellow professionals will take up this challenge.

This issue helps begin the discussion by introducing several key issues. Six of our fourteen articles address and intersect on the topics of command posts, artificial intelligence, and unmanned aerial vehicles—all topics specifically addressed in the Army’s initial guidance.⁵ But what may be more significant, this issue highlights potential blind spots in our transformation. At the top of the list is combat casualty care. The treatment, evacuation, and care of our soldiers on the battlefield will be enduring imperatives. How might organizational changes and technological advancements enhance our ability to care for our soldiers? We are fortunate that very senior members of our Army and joint medical community chose Military Review to bring both this knowledge and discussion into the larger operational force. The ball is now in our collective, military professional court.

Where the Army will ultimately go and how it will get to its transformational ends are open ended and unknown. We, as military professionals, can shape both the destination and means of transformation by engaging in the debate. Whether it is on the pages of Military Review or some other journal, we encourage you to think and write about the issues facing our Army. It is our responsibility as stewards of the profession of arms.

Notes

Secretary of Defense, memorandum for senior Pentagon leadership, “Army Transformation and Acquisition Reform,” 30 April 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/01/2003702281/-1/-1/1/ARMY-TRANSFORMATION-AND-ACQUISITION-REFORM.PDF.
Dan Driscoll and Randy A. George, “Letter to the Force: Army Transformation Initiative,” U.S. Army, 1 May 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/285100.
Andrew Feickert, The 2024 Army Force Structure Transformation Initiative, Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report No. R47985 (CRS, 5 February 2025), 1–5, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47985.
For example, see James E. Rainey, “Continuous Transformation,” Military Review 104, no. 5 (September-October 2024): 10–26; Spencer L. French, “No Future for an ‘Indispensable’ Service: The Challenges of Resource-Constrained Army Transformation, 1945–1950,” Military Review 105, no. 3 (May-June 2025): 50–61; Nigel R. F. Aylwin-Foste, “Changing the Army for Counterinsurgency Operations,” Military Review 85, no. 6 (November-December 2005): 2–15; Stephen Petraeus and Daniel Reynolds, “Strykers on the Mechanized Battlefield,” Military Review 97, no. 6 (November-December 2017): 60–69; Ryan Orsini, “How to Keep Changing an Army: Adjusting Modernization in the Age of Loitering Munitions,” Military Review 102, no. 3 (May-June 2022): 98–104; Michael D. Lundy, “Meeting the Challenge of Large-Scale Combat Operations Today and Tomorrow,” Military Review 98, no. 5 (September-October 2018): 111–18; Jesse McIntyre, “Got COIN? Counterinsurgency Debate Continues,” Military Review Online Exclusive, 27 September 2018, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2018-OLE/Sep/Got-COIN/; Douglas A. Ollivant and Eric D. Chewning, “Producing Victory: Rethinking Conventional Forces in COIN Operations,” Military Review 86, no. 4 (July-August 2006): 50–59; Bill Benson, “Unified Land Operations: The Evolution of Army Doctrine for Success in the 21st Century,” Military Review 92, no. 2 (March-April 2012): 2–12.
“Army Undertakes Sweeping Reforms to Restructure, Acquisition,” Association of the United States Army News, 1 May 2025, https://www.ausa.org/news/army-undertakes-sweeping-reforms-structure-acquisition.