The strength of the American military has always been its people. Since the early days of our nation, the grit, determination, and character of our people have catapulted the United States to its position as a world power.
Just as it wasn’t a musket that won the Revolutionary War or the B-52 that won World War II, the tools our military utilizes wouldn’t be effective without the human intelligence behind them.
What happens when you remove the human element from the instruments of war? Importantly, are we ready to find out? These are the questions at the forefront of conversations in Washington, D.C. as the White House proposes a bold 2026 budget that leans heavily on unmanned aircraft systems.
Of course, aircraft are the first line of experimentation in the world of unmanned systems. The use of drones for military, commercial, and personal purposes is increasing steadily. In a battlefield scenario, it is tempting to think the U.S. military can simply secure a weapon to a drone and fly it to its intended target. If it succeeds, excellent. If not, oh well.
There is a place for unmanned systems in our military, both today and from this point forward. Yet, as a world power, the United States cannot remove its biggest military strength – its people.
Take for example the White House’s decision to omit funding for the AH-64 Apache. This attack helicopter has been a mainstay for the Army through a number of pivotal moments in U.S. military history. It has proven its worth through several iterations and modernizations, always built to suit the needs of an ever-changing battlefield.
New Pentagon leadership cut Apache funding as part of an effort to plan for future warfare and align its budget to fit those needs. It’s admirable that the administration is working to heighten fiscal responsibility and be good financial stewards of taxpayer dollars.
The Apache, however, is the wrong target. Proven and battle-tested, continuous transformation has made the AH-64 a powerful asset for the Army as it looks to the battles of the future. As Army leadership increasingly prioritizes unmanned systems, they need the AH-64 to serve as a battlefield manager in the sky.
Apache modernization initiatives have enabled the attack helicopter to deploy with and control unmanned systems to enhance the warfighter’s capabilities with minimal risk. Combining the flexibility of a manned system with unmanned capabilities maximizes operational effectiveness, leading to better results and safer soldiers.
The men and women on the front lines who operate systems like the Apache are the first to speak to the importance of the human factor in war fighting. Gen. Laura Richardson (ret.) spoke to Defense News about the issue, saying that “unmanned systems provide commanders amazing capabilities but there are limits. UAVs lack situational understanding, situational curiosity, and… situational agility.”
In other words, human operators are essential to mission success. There’s another component to this that is rarely discussed, which is that there is no unmanned system that is ready for deployment today to replace systems like the AH-64. It is vital that before our elected leaders and military officials phase out any manned program, there must be a realistic transition process in place that will support American priorities without gaps in defense. Rushing toward an uncertain future of untested assets will inevitably leave the U.S. flatfooted in near-future conflicts – no longer able to use tried-and-true systems while working with new systems that are unproven and not ready for deployment.
Another important consideration is the institutional knowledge that accompanies longstanding, manned platforms like the Apache. These aircraft are supported by decades of doctrine, training programs, maintenance infrastructure, and tactical integration across the services. Removing them doesn’t just mean losing an airframe — it means abandoning a deep reservoir of operational wisdom and logistical preparedness that cannot be easily replicated. New systems, especially unmanned ones, require new training pipelines, support crews, communications protocols, and tactics. That kind of overhaul takes years, not months, and can leave dangerous capability gaps in the interim.
So what does happen when you remove the human element from the instruments of war? It is clear that the military would lose agility, adaptability, and capability in a real-time battle scenario. Are we ready to face that reality? The resounding answer is no.
The strength of the United States has always been its people. Why would we take our biggest asset out of the fight?
Editor’s Note: To celebrate the passage of the tremendous One Big, Beautiful Bill, we’re offering a fire sale on VIP memberships!
Join us in the fight against the radical left today and support our reporting as President Trump continues to usher in the Golden Age of America. Use promo code POTUS47 at checkout to get 74% off!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member