The United States is trying to become the “undisputed country in the world” [artificial intelligence-enabled] Combat power.”
At least that’s the view of the country’s Ministry of the Army, which earlier this month announced a new strategy to accelerate the adoption of AI for military purposes.
The AI Acceleration Strategy has a clear goal of putting the U.S. military on the front lines of the AI war. But all the hype in this strategy ignores the reality and limitations of AI capabilities.
This can be thought of as a type of “AI peacocking” that loudly publicizes AI adoption and leadership, clouding the reality of unreliable systems.
What does this mean for America’s AI strategy?
Several militaries around the world, including China and Israel, are implementing AI in their operations. But the AI-first philosophy of the U.S. Department of the Army’s new strategy sets it apart.
This strategy aims to make the U.S. military more lethal and efficient. It suggests that AI is one way to achieve this goal.
The agency plans to encourage experimentation with AI models. It will also deploy AI across the military, support investments in AI infrastructure, and eliminate what it calls “bureaucratic barriers” to moving forward with a series of major military projects that leverage AI.
One of these projects aims to use AI to turn information into weapons “in hours, not years.” This is alarming considering how this kind of approach is used elsewhere.
For example, there are ongoing reports of increased civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip as a result of the Israeli military’s use of AI-enabled decision support systems. This essentially turns information into weaponized targeting information at unprecedented speed and scale. Further accelerating this pipeline risks unnecessarily escalating the harm to civilians.
Another major project aims to put U.S. AI models (presumably intended for military use) “directly into the hands of 3 million civilians and military personnel at all classification levels.”
It’s not clear why 3 million civilian Americans would need access to military AI systems. We also don’t know what impact widespread dissemination of military capabilities to civilians will have.
story and reality
In July 2025, an MIT study found that 95% of organizations see zero return on investment in generative AI.
The main reason was the technical limitations of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and Copilot. For example, most people are unable to retain feedback, adapt to new situations, or improve over time.
This study focused on generative AI in a business context. But this finding applies more broadly. They point out the shortcomings of AI that are too often hidden by the hype surrounding the technology.
AI is an umbrella term. It is used to cover a wide range of functionality, from large-scale language models to computer vision models. These are technically different tools and have different uses and purposes.
Although applications, capabilities, and success rates vary widely, most AI applications come together to form a globally successful marketing agenda.
This is reminiscent of the dot-com bubble of the early 2000s, which treated marketing as a valid business model.
This approach now appears to be permeating how the United States seeks to position itself within the current geopolitical climate.
“AI Peacocking” Guide
The Department of the Army’s AI-first strategy is more of a guide to “AI peacocking” than a legitimate strategy for deploying the technology.
AI is envisioned as a solution to all kinds of problems, even those that don’t exist. The marketing behind AI has created a manufactured fear of falling behind. The War Department’s new AI strategy feeds on that fear by hinting at a technologically advanced military strategy.
However, in reality, the capabilities of these technologies fall short of their claimed effectiveness. And in military settings, these restrictions can have devastating consequences, including increased civilian deaths.
The United States is leaning heavily toward a marketing-driven business model to deploy AI across the military without technical rigor or integrity.
This approach could expose vulnerable gaps throughout the Department of the Army when these vulnerable systems fail, and perhaps in moments of crisis when deployed in the military field.
