As global threats rise and battlefields grow more complex, countries must not gamble on their defense strategy. For the last century, most military investment has gone to platforms such as ships, tanks and aircraft. These systems remain essential, yet they carry vulnerabilities, and none of them replace the need for a soldier who can understand and act in real time. Today, our greatest vulnerability is not the lack of advanced systems. It is the widening gap between what technology can see and what our soldiers can effectively adopt under fire. If we want to maintain strategic advantage and protect our forces, we must put the soldier back at the center of modern warfare.
Moreover, recent conflicts, from Ukraine to Israel’s multiple fronts, highlight a truth that should guide military planning for the next decade. Airpower and Cyber can disrupt, degrade and delay an adversary, but they cannot defeat an enemy or change political reality. Only ground maneuver forces can seize, hold and influence the battlespace, “sticking the flag” as it has been done throughout the ages. This principle has not changed since the beginning of organized warfare, but the urgency around it has. In an era defined by precision fires, drones, cyber disruptions and constant surveillance, ground forces must evolve faster than ever to match the threats.
Modern military operations aren’t just about having large numbers of troops or vehicles. Success today depends on integrating infantry, armored units, artillery, air support and real-time intelligence into a single operational force. Commanders need to understand complex terrain instantly and react to threats that appear and disappear within seconds. That means today’s soldiers must be highly trained, well-connected and equipped with technologies that deliver immediate understanding rather than delayed response.
At the same time, combat manpower is shrinking across Western militaries, and their level of readiness is questionable as armies rely more and more on reserve manpower. Recruitment gaps and demographic realities mean that fewer soldiers are available for sustained ground operations. This reality makes soldier lethality and survivability central priorities. The only practical way to achieve greater battlefield impact with fewer troops is through soldier-level technologies that act as force multipliers. Compared to large platforms, the cost of equipping each soldier with high-impact tools is strikingly modest for the impact it delivers.
To achieve ground superiority, maneuver units must constantly stay ahead in all aspects, as adversaries are constantly adapting. They need the ability to gather intelligence and analyze it at the tactical edge, even under GPS and communications denial. Fast and accurate coordination with other forces, especially fire support elements and aerial forces, is critical to eliminate threats. Waiting for a higher-echelon decision while a threat moves, hides or relocates is no longer acceptable on a modern battlefield, and units must be able to move independently to respond to the immediate threat.
This shift requires technologies that are lightweight, intuitive and designed for real combat conditions. The best system in the world is useless if soldiers will not or cannot use it under stress. Lessons from every conflict point to the same conclusion: if a capability is not integrated into the soldier’s personal gear, it will not be used. Zero-training and rapid deployability determine whether a solution actually contributes to lethality and survivability in the field.
Speed is one of the most decisive factors in modern combat. Soldiers face threats that emerge with almost no warning – small drones, mobile launch teams, infiltration squads. Rapid access to intelligence and precise targeting at the platoon and squad level have become the difference between neutralizing a threat and suffering casualties.
This is why investing in warfighters provides immediate battlefield returns. Faster decision making, increased survivability, real-time intelligence at the edge, greater precision and lethality, and true operational independence for units. These advantages are essential when facing adversaries who rely on jamming, deception and rapid movement.
The United States is already moving in this direction. Programs such as IVAS (Integrated Visual Augmented System) represent an important effort to give soldiers next-generation sensing and situational awareness. But the pace of global conflict demands moving faster. Soldiers must become the central node in the information and decision network, not the last to receive critical data.
Procurement will determine whether this transformation succeeds. Over the past year, the Trump administration and the Department of Defense have made rapid acquisition a top priority. Recent wars have shown that technologies proven in combat can be integrated far more quickly than systems developed in isolation. The U.S. can benefit from allied ecosystems that operate under high-intensity conditions. Israeli defense technology companies, including ours, have shortened development-to-deployment cycles by working directly with active military units on the battlefield. Faster partnerships with these companies can shorten U.S. fielding timelines and provide American soldiers with capabilities already tested in the environments they are preparing for.
In 2026, the most strategic investment any nation can make is not another aircraft, missile system or armored vehicle. It is in the soldier. If we fail to close the gap between technological potential and the soldier’s ability to act on it, we risk losing the strategic advantage we seek to protect. But if we get it right, we will empower our forces not only to withstand the challenges of future battlefields but to dominate them.
First published at USA TODAY
