Logistics Must Be Treated as a Weapon System”
From Contested to Contesting: Rethinking Military Logistics in the Age of AI and Quantum Computing
In a recent episode of Logistics Lens, Brigadier General Jeff Kent offers a candid and deeply informed perspective on how military logistics is evolving—and why it must evolve faster. Drawing on over three decades of experience, Kent outlines a fundamental shift underway: from executing logistics efficiently in permissive environments to designing resilient, adaptive systems capable of operating under constant disruption.
At the heart of the conversation is a simple but powerful idea: logistics is no longer just a support function—it is a decisive warfighting capability.
Logistics as a Strategic Advantage
Kent describes his career trajectory as a shift from “executor to systems designer,” reflecting a broader transformation within the Department of Defense. Early in his career, success meant moving units and sustaining operations. Today, it’s about designing systems that enable faster, more informed decision-making across complex, multinational environments.
His experience at U.S. European Command (EUCOM) highlights this complexity. Supporting operations tied to Ukraine while simultaneously strengthening long-term resilience across 30+ allied nations required navigating inconsistent infrastructure, varying capabilities, and divergent national priorities. The challenge wasn’t just movement—it was orchestration at scale.
This led to a critical realization: logistics must be built to “bend without breaking.” In other words, resilience—not efficiency—is now the defining metric.
From Contested Logistics to Contesting Logistics
One of the most compelling ideas Kent introduces is the distinction between contested logistics and contesting logistics. The former is reactive—how the U.S. sustains operations under attack. The latter is proactive—how the U.S. disrupts adversary logistics before they can act.
This shift reframes logistics as an offensive capability. By understanding adversary supply chains, vulnerabilities, and decision cycles, logisticians can work alongside intelligence teams to create disruption, deterrence, and strategic advantage.
It also expands the battlefield. Kent emphasizes that tools like diplomacy, finance, and even lawfare can be leveraged alongside traditional military means to achieve logistical effects without escalating conflict.
The Role of AI and Decision Superiority
Artificial intelligence emerges as a critical enabler in this new environment. For understaffed logistics teams—sometimes as small as 60 personnel at the combatant command level—AI offers the ability to process vast datasets, generate options, and accelerate decision-making with greater confidence.
But Kent is clear: AI is only as effective as the frameworks guiding it. Traditional planning processes, like the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP), remain essential. AI doesn’t replace them—it enhances them.
The real value lies in combining structured decision frameworks with advanced analytics to uncover insights that humans alone might miss. This fusion enables what Kent calls “decision advantage”—the ability to act faster and more effectively than an adversary.
Quantum Computing: The Next Frontier
Looking ahead, Kent points to quantum computing as the next major leap. While still emerging, its potential lies in running complex simulations and probability analyses at unprecedented speed and scale.
In logistics, this could mean evaluating countless scenarios simultaneously—assessing supply chain risks, geopolitical variables, and operational constraints in real time. The goal isn’t just better decisions, but exponentially faster and more informed ones.
Importantly, Kent advocates for a hybrid approach that combines classical and quantum computing, ensuring practical implementation while the technology matures.
Breaking Barriers to Innovation
Despite the promise of these technologies, Kent identifies culture—not funding or technology—as the biggest barrier to progress. The military must move beyond legacy thinking and embrace a mindset of continuous adaptation.
“We design for perfection but never execute that way,” he notes, arguing instead for systems built around disruption as the baseline.
He also calls for greater humility—recognizing that innovation can come from allies, industry, and even other disciplines. Collaboration across government, academia, and the private sector is essential to truly stress-test logistics capabilities and prepare for future conflicts.
The episode ultimately delivers a clear message: logistics must be treated as a weapon system. Adversaries already recognize its importance, targeting supply chains and distribution networks before engaging traditional combat forces.
To stay ahead, the U.S. must rethink how it designs, tests, and executes logistics operations—leveraging technology, embracing new concepts, and fostering a culture of innovation.
Because in the conflicts of tomorrow, victory may not hinge on who has the most firepower—but on who can sustain it.
