Command and Control

The US National Guard is closely tied to the C2 transformation programmes of the US Army; as their strategic and operational reserve there is no alternative. Yet the other missions of the National Guard - whether responses to pandemics, civil unrest, or natural disasters - have different priorities to meeting and destroying the enemy. Lt Gen (rtd) Jon Jensen, 22ndDirector of the National Guard, talks about those tensions, the ethos of mission and purpose, the funding for major change programmes, and how the US National Guard will adapt to the C2 challenges of the future. General Jensen's focus on people and process rather than technology and systems is refreshing and eye opening. The US National Guard will be challenged by the frictions in establishing a single C2 system that covers both the US Army National Guard (as part of the US Army) and the US Air National Guard (working under the USAF) but the legacy of Jon Jensen as Director should minimise tension and maximise effectiveness. Not a bad way to end 41 years of service.
Lt Gen Jon Jensen has recently retired after more than four decades of service, culminating in 28 months as the 22ndDirector of the Army National Guard, a job that guided the formation, development, and implementation of all programs and policies affecting nearly 335,0000 soldiers in 50 states, 3 territories, and the District of Columbia. Jon joined the Iowa state guard in 1982 as a combat medic and went on to become an NCO before becoming an officer. This was, of course, the Cold War and the last period of Great Power competition. Since then, Jon experienced the Guard through Counter Terror missions and Counter Insurgency during the Global War of Terror, as well as the domestic demands of pandemic, civil unrest, and natural disasters. Before his role as Director, Jon served as the 31st Adjutant General of Minnesota and earlier, as Commanding General of the Minnesota National Guard's 34th Infantry Division. He also was dual-hatted as Deputy Commander and Army Reserve Component Integration Adviser, U.S. Army Africa and Southern European Task Force, U.S. Africa Command. He has commanded at the company, battalion, brigade and division levels. His operational assignments include operations DESERT SPRING in Kuwait, JOINT FORGE in Bosnia Herzegovina in SFOR14, and IRAQI FREEDOM, twice.
The Disclaimer: Views expressed here do not represent those of the US National Guard, the US Department of Defense/Department of War, or any other institution.

No commander would deny that military actions are governed by both behaviours, policy and law yet there is considerably more emphasis placed in rules of engagement, release criteria, and national interpretations of self defence in the training and education of military officers than in the legal principles that sits behind them. Those principles were created by fighters who had experienced the cauldon of combat across the millenia and determined that there were some basic ideas about the conduct of war, the treatment of prisoners and civilians that needed to be codified. Whether the Code of Hummurari in 1750BCE, how guidance was drawn from the Book of Deuteronomy, the ethics of the 7th Century caliph of Abu Bakr, or the writings of Augustine of Hippo, the laws of war have a rather significant history associated to them.
Today, governed still by international law above all else, commanders cannot get away from the complexities of the law on operations and - with increasing scrutiny on military action after the fact – the role of the legal advisor in a headquarters has rarely been more important. But the LEGAD occupies an unusual and difficult position: holding the moral, ethical, and legal boundaries in focus in the midst of hard – perhaps even existential - fighting requires tenacity, honesty, and considerable courage.
Brigadier Lisa Ferris, currently the New Zealand Defence Force's attache to the UK and previously head of the NZDF legal servcies team, explains more.

Battlefield medicine is as much an enabler and force multiplier as good logistics. Whilst this is acknowledged by many, including those in the US Army, there is a peculiar absence of consideration for Battlefield Health in selection and development of its new command and control system. Major General (retired) Edward Dorman, a proven combat leader and master logistician, digs into what is needed for medical C2 as an operational consideration in the future, about which lessons are relevant from both US experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan and from partners experiences in Ukraine and wider contemporary conflict. Structured data alone is not the answer, neither is agentic AI, Large Language Models, or boutique systems. The conversation has a realism about Battlefield Medicine and Healthcare that has been absent for too long.

The US Navy is undergoing some seismic changes in terms of C2. Not only is the concept of how they fight changing (from Fleet command to fight from the MOC), but also in changing the supporting system (GCCS-M). In understanding these changes, who is going what, when, and why, Peter is joined by David Gast, formerly head of PMW150 to outline the good, the bad, and the difficult; but most importantly to try and allow us to understand what this will feel like for the sailor (or staff officer) in 3 or 5 years' time.
The Guest: Captain (retired) David Gast was commissioned as a Surface Warfare Officer in 1996, serving in cruisers and destroyers before a lateral shift into the Engineering community. David's subsequent service saw him deeply involved in C2, C4I, and integration and interoperability programmes at the NRO, NAVWAR (or SPAWAR as it was then), and DCGS-N. He was the Combat Systems Officer in USS NIMITZ for her 2016-2017 workup and deployment before becoming Deputy Program Manager for the US Navy's C2 Program Office (known as PMW150); he subsequently became Programme Manager there. David's final tour in the USN was as Director of Innovation for the Program Executive Office for C4I, and military lead for C4I effects. Recently retired, David is now the Founder and Principal of DWG Agile Innovations LLC, an advisory, consulting and coaching firm.
The Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are those of Mr David Gast and do not represent those of the US Navy or the US Department of Defense.

President Eisenhower was notable in expressing his frustration at his civilian staff's unwillingness to challenge or disagree with him face to face. That practice, of being challenged and questioned, was something he valued when he served as Supreme Allied Commander but it seems less evident in military headquarters today, or in recent history. Nor is this a peculiarly American tendency: as researcher, author, and provocateur Dr Charles Vandepeer from Charles Sturt University points out, both the British, French, and Australian militaries have been prone to self-deception and optimism bias. Notable in acquisition and procurement decisions and behaviours, it is also present in military headquarters and by commanders. There is lots of evidence and research on how to overcome it yet using trite phrases such as "My door is always open" just won't cut it if leaders are serious about countering conspiracies of optimism that lead to operational failure. In order to confront reality, military leaders need to change their outlook and find more time for thinking. This might seem harder today than previously: in the age of real time chat, ubiquitous communications connectivity, and endless distractions, it is easier for leaders to doomscroll their way through command appointments than to make time and space for challenge, reality, and thinking.
This conversation came about because of this article from War On The Rocks from 2019: https://warontherocks.com/self-deception-and-the-conspiracy-of-optimism/
In his remarks, Charles noted the remarks made by Major General Chris Smith of the Australian Army in 2025 at the Chief of Army History Conference . Watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv6wQiUu4yo