We live in an era in which the speed of information and technological evolution have radically transformed the concept of global security. Military and economic supremacy is no longer measured solely on the battlefield of conventional force, but is played out on the plane of Cognitive Warfare, a domain in which adversaries compete to shape the perception of reality, accelerate decision cycles and erode strategic advantage.

To understand the scope of this transformation, one need only take a step back into the past and look at sports. In 2002, the Oakland Athletics baseball team, with a budget smaller than the giants in the industry, managed to outpace the competition by relying on rigorous, data-driven analysis (the famous story immortalized in the book and film Moneyball). Similarly, modern armed forces today face a crucial crossroads: integrate Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI/ML) into decision-making processes or risk being irredeemably overtaken.

The Challenge of Cognitive Warfare and the Need for Change

In recent years, global actors have demonstrated how psychological and informational influence, combined with advanced digital tools, can alter geopolitical balances. If commercial technology — from ChatGPT to similar tools developed in Asia — has revolutionized the private sector by reducing analysis times from days to just seconds, the defense sector cannot afford to fall behind.

However, having the technology is not enough. Data shows that the vast majority of organizations experimenting with artificial intelligence struggle to generate real value at scale. The bottleneck is not technological, but behavioral and structural.

The Star Model: Five Key Factors for Adaptation

To overcome resistance to change and foster effective adoption of AI, it is useful to resort to a proven strategic framework, the Star Model (adapted to analyze military organizations across five fundamental dimensions):

1. People: It is necessary to overcome the “search engine mentality.” Users often tend to treat AI systems as simple static archives with fixed responses, becoming frustrated when results do not meet immediate expectations. Artificial intelligence, instead, requires dynamic, iterative interaction based on targeted prompts. Through targeted training, personnel performance can increase significantly, reducing operational times and improving work quality.
2. Structure: Military decisions vary in complexity and nature. Overly rigid and centralized structures risk relegating AI to a merely marginal role or passive consultation. The adoption of collaborative models — in which man and machine work side by side (hybrid interaction approaches) — allows for better exploitation of the machine's continuous analysis capacity while preserving critical human judgment.
3. Processes: Integrating AI into joint planning processes (such as the synthesis of intelligence information or the development and comparison of different courses of action) makes it possible to drastically accelerate decision cycles. Artificial intelligence supports the observation and orientation phase, relieving operators of repetitive tasks and allowing them to focus on critical and creative thinking.
4. Incentives: Resistance to change, whether due to fear of professional obsolescence or distrust of technology, represents a natural obstacle. To overcome it, organizations must balance extrinsic incentives (recognition and promotions) with intrinsic ones (greater efficiency in research, intellectual stimulation and overcoming cognitive biases).
5. Leadership: Leaders and commanders must develop strong digital and technological literacy firsthand. Only by understanding the true potential and limitations of artificial intelligence is it possible to guide the organization toward a clear and shared vision, transforming passive resistance into a concrete operational advantage.

Conclusion

The introduction of artificial intelligence into military decision-making processes does not aim to replace the human being, but to enhance their capabilities in an increasingly complex and fast-paced global context. As international strategic leadership has highlighted, adapting quickly and at scale is no longer an optional choice, but a vital necessity to maintain strategic superiority and collective security.