March to the Sound of the Guns: Organizational Integration for Strategic Competition

Key Takeaways

• Army lacks functional model for non‑kinetic influence operations
• Proposes embedding info‑warfare officers in State Dept bureaus
• Focus on decisive points: access, basing, supply chains
• CAS structure offers coordination blueprint for political warfare
• Enhances U.S. ability to shape third‑country decisions

Summary

The U.S. Army recognizes a doctrinal gap in integrating information operations into strategic competition and proposes a new organizational model that mirrors close‑air‑support (CAS) structures. By embedding information‑warfare professionals within State Department regional bureaus and key embassies, the Army aims to target decisive points such as access, basing, overflight and supply‑chain decisions in third countries. This approach treats non‑kinetic influence as a coordinated, “air‑support‑like” function that can be massed to shape foreign policy outcomes. The proposal seeks to align military tools with diplomatic authority to sustain U.S. strategic advantage.

Pulse Analysis

The modern competitive environment places the majority of conflict on a low‑intensity spectrum where traditional firepower yields diminishing returns. U.S. doctrine now emphasizes shaping the information environment, yet it offers no concrete framework for synchronizing those efforts with diplomatic levers. By borrowing the proven command‑and‑control architecture of close‑air‑support, the Army can create a dedicated hub—akin to an Air Support Operations Center—inside State Department regional bureaus, ensuring rapid, precise influence actions that align with broader strategic objectives.

Key to this model is the identification of decisive points that lie outside the battlefield: decisions on access, basing, overflight rights, and supply‑chain routes. These are the modern equivalents of seizing a hill or destroying an enemy formation. Embedding information‑warfare specialists at embassies functions like Tactical Air Control Parties, providing real‑time liaison between military planners and diplomatic negotiators. This proximity enables the rapid massing of influence tools—psychological operations, public affairs, and civil‑military engagement—to sway selectorates in third countries, effectively turning diplomatic negotiations into a coordinated kinetic‑like operation.

If adopted, this integration could reshape interagency dynamics, granting the Department of Defense a more direct role in political warfare while respecting statutory authority of the State Department. The model promises greater agility, measurable impact, and a unified narrative across the U.S. government, essential for countering adversaries who already exploit information channels at scale. Implementing such structures will require revised training, joint funding streams, and clear metrics to evaluate influence outcomes, positioning the United States to maintain strategic superiority in the era of gray‑zone competition.