In recent years, as AI has begun to enter military planning and operational design, a persistent unease has surfaced among practitioners. Even with improved tools, increased tempo, and unprecedented access to data, plans continue to falter on integration, coherence, and a shared sense of direction. Marco Lyons’ recent War on the Rocks article on the perceived decline of operational art gives voice to this unease in a way that is both timely and important.
We do not know enough about the specific wargame, its constraints, or its internal dynamics to adjudicate these conclusions directly. What Lyons’ account nevertheless captures with clarity is a set of recurring difficulties that many practitioners recognize: fragmented campaigns, sequential decision-making, and a widening gap between planning activity and operational coherence.
Drawing on our experience teaching operational art and experimenting with planning, we share this concern. Yet Lyons’ observations may also point to something deeper: a tension between different ways of thinking about operations.