Diplomatic Analysis: Maintaining Strategic Breadth in Military Education is Crucial for Long-Term U.S. Security.
This analysis examines a recent article from War on the Rocks concerning the ongoing debate about professional military education (PME) in the United States. The core question is whether PME should increasingly focus on the technological aspects of modern warfare – a ‘school of battle’ – or maintain a broader, more historically and strategically focused curriculum – a ‘school of war’. As geopolitical competition intensifies, particularly with a focus on potential conflicts with China and Russia, and new technologies like AI and drones reshape the battlefield, the debate is particularly salient. The implications extend beyond military effectiveness, impacting strategic decision-making, resource allocation, and ultimately, national security.
Historical Context
The tension between tactical proficiency and strategic understanding in military education is longstanding. As early as the 19th century, commentators argued that advancements in weaponry fundamentally altered warfare, rendering historical precedent obsolete. However, this argument has repeatedly proven flawed. The authors, Ferguson and Rogers, point to the case of Jan Bloch in 1901, who predicted the end of large-scale wars due to technological advancements – an inaccurate prediction that ironically was informed by a study of the American Civil War. Throughout the 20th century, developments like railroads, aircraft, nuclear weapons, and precision munitions spurred similar debates. The interwar period saw a successful attempt to balance technical knowledge with a broader education at institutions like the Army War College, contributing to Allied success in World War II. However, that balance was later lost, particularly following the Vietnam War, with an overemphasis on technological solutions and a corresponding decline in strategic thinking. The subsequent revival of strategic thought, especially through the School of Advanced Military Studies, contributed to successes in the 1991 Gulf War, only to be followed by another shift towards technological determinism post-9/11. This cyclical pattern demonstrates the ongoing and recurring need to critically assess educational priorities.
Key Actors & Positions
The primary actors are within the U.S. military establishment: educators, policymakers, and serving officers. Ferguson and Rogers represent a position advocating for maintaining the breadth of PME, particularly the emphasis on history, strategy, and political context. They don’t explicitly argue against incorporating new technologies but caution against doing so at the expense of established fundamentals. Other voices, notably Jensen and Tracy (referenced in the article), advocate for a rebalancing towards technical proficiency in areas like AI and joint all-domain operations, arguing that this is necessary to maintain a competitive edge in a rapidly evolving security environment. Influential figures like former Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are also mentioned, supporting a greater emphasis on strategy and national security studies. A wider constituency—including defence contractors and technology advocates—benefit from increased attention to emerging technologies within the military framework. The implicit position of the U.S. military’s leadership, while not monolithic, tends to oscillate based on recent experiences, currently leaning towards a greater emphasis on technical capabilities given the perceived advancements of potential adversaries.
Analysis
The core argument presented is compelling: prioritising tactical gains through technological proficiency at the expense of strategic understanding risks replicating past mistakes. The authors rightly highlight the dangers of ‘the vampire fallacy’ – the repeated belief that the latest technological ‘revolution’ renders previous lessons irrelevant. The article effectively demonstrates that while technology certainly changes the character of warfare, it does not alter its fundamental nature, which remains rooted in political aims, human behaviour, and the complexities of uncertainty.
A purely technical focus risks producing tactically adept officers who lack the capacity for strategic thinking, failing to connect battlefield victories to long-term political objectives—a pattern observed in recent U.S. military engagements. The unpredictable nature of future conflicts also undermines the rationale for heavily focusing on specific technologies; today’s “revolutionary” weapon may be obsolete tomorrow. The authors make a key point that military education must prepare leaders for conflicts they cannot predict, and a broad educational foundation is best suited to foster adaptability and critical thinking in unforeseen circumstances.
Furthermore, the article implicitly raises questions about resource allocation. Shifting resources towards technical training inevitably means diverting them from other vital areas, such as language studies, regional expertise, and historical analysis. This narrowing of focus could exacerbate existing deficiencies in areas essential for effective statecraft and diplomacy, potentially undermining the broader goals of U.S. foreign policy. This highlights the importance of considering the trade-offs inherent in any curriculum reform.
Outlook
The near-term outlook suggests the trend towards increased technical focus in PME will likely continue, driven by concerns about great power competition and the allure of technological solutions. However, the authors’ argument represents a crucial counterweight to this trend and is gaining traction amongst elements within the military and academic communities. A complete dismantling of the ‘school of war’ approach is unlikely, but a significant erosion of its core principles remains a real possibility. The key will be whether institutional mechanisms can safeguard the study of history, strategy, and political context within PME. Ongoing discussions, such as those prompted by this article, are vital to ensure a more informed and balanced approach to military education. A practical outcome may involve refining educational modalities – leveraging technology to enhance learning in areas like tactics and operational art – rather than drastically reallocating curricular time. Long-term, the U.S. military will need leaders capable of navigating a complex and uncertain world, and that requires not just technological expertise, but a deep understanding of the enduring principles of warfare and statecraft.
Sources:
* Ferguson, Michael P., and Clifford J. Rogers. “School of War or School of Battle? Educating for an Uncertain Future.” War on the Rocks, 1 October 2026, [https://warontherocks.com/2026/10/school-of-war-or-school-of-battle-educating-for-an-uncertain-future/](https://warontherocks.com/2026/10/school-of-war-or-school-of-battle-educating-for-an-uncertain-future/).
