A group of intelligent officers well trained in the latest logistical techniques is enough, in the 21st century no more is needed.
Not true. The high-end NCO's need those skills more than officers do. They're the ones that really know what the troops need versus what the supply system tells them they do. For example, one of my particular exceptional skills as one of those NCO's was being able to go through a complex set of drawings for some 'thing' that more of was needed to be made where the drawings were under-explained, horribly outdated, etc., and find the parts, materials, or alternatives that worked instead.
I often called the "engineer(s)" who designed something that was under explained and asked, "Just what the f*** were you thinking?" Answers were usually, "Well, we had to put a spec on it..." or "We were on a deadline and figured the missing (whatever) would be filled in during production..."
AI can't do that, at least not yet, and likely not for decades to come. It requires making complex inferences, familiarity with what the thing is supposed to do and how, and creativity in coming up with alternatives. AI doesn't do those things well.
Map strategies and halls full of uniforms won't win future wars, that will be much better for strong AI.
I doubt it. AI isn't all that creative, just derivative.
The conscript to his home, the Iron Sergeant to his retirement and the robots to the battlefield.
That's fine. At the pointy end not a lot of thinking is required. Of course, industrial age warfare is quickly coming to an end as Russian and Ukraine are slowly realizing. The mass army of minimally trained troops is no longer necessary and what is replacing them is highly skilled technicians and decision makers who aren't expendable like ammunition.
If all the old structures were anything to go by, they would have already been incorporated by the army that has won all the wars, but the Israelis do not consider them necessary, and reality shows that they are right.
Navies and air forces are far more technical. That requires skilled technicians and skills require being paid adequately and treated as more than 'the help' who can maintain and operate increasingly complex systems. Reliance on a relative handful of civilian experts instead of in house (in the military) ones won't cut it in a war. Civilians will resist or refuse to work in areas of privation or danger without insane levels of compensation.
In the age of sail there was something of this system in place. You had three, maybe four, tiers of personnel on a ship.
Officers who ran the ship, were management, and maintained discipline and order.
Experts--call them "Masters" or warrant officers--who assisted the officers in making complex, technical decisions on specific areas of operation of the ship like navigation, sail choices, and the like.
Skilled craftsmen who oversaw hands on operation and repair of the ship. So, you'd have a sailmaker, carpenter, artificer, etc., each knowing a specific trade and overseeing the hands doing the work.
Crew. They were at various levels of skill in basic jobs on the ship.
The top three types got paid well to do what they did because they had skills that were hard to acquire. They were treated with respect. The crew was basically under their thumb on a short leash at all times.
Robots can replace the crew, but as for the others, not so much, at least not in the near future. It is those that the military needs to work out a new pay, respect, and benefit system for.
