In the race for artificial intelligence dominance, speed is not a luxury. It is leverage.

The Department of War has been unusually candid about this reality as demonstrated by Pete Hegseth’s remarks at Space-X on January 12th. Artificial intelligence is no longer an experiment confined to labs or pilot programs. It is operational. It is shaping cyber defense, intelligence analysis, targeting, logistics, and command and control. Yet the mechanisms designed to deliver capability to the field were built for a slower era, one where threats evolved in years, not weeks. This tension between innovation velocity and acquisition cadence is a primary motivator behind recent reform efforts aimed at delivering capability “at the speed of relevance.”

That mismatch is no longer theoretical. It is strategic.

The Advantage Isn’t Better Algorithms. It’s Faster Decisions.

Much of the public conversation around AI fixates on model performance: accuracy, scale, compute, and data. Those elements matter. But in operational environments, AI advantage rarely comes down to who has the most elegant algorithm. It comes down to who can decide, adapt, and act faster.

Decision speed is the real force multiplier.

An AI system that arrives 18 months late, no matter how capable, enters a battlefield that has already changed. Cyber threats mutate. Adversaries iterate. Tools that were decisive yesterday become baseline tomorrow. Slow fielding does not merely delay advantage; it actively erodes it.

This is the uncomfortable truth the DoW is now confronting head-on. The Government Accountability Office has highlighted this disconnect between innovation cycles and traditional acquisition pathways, noting that inconsistent implementation of adaptive approaches undermines the ability to deliver rapid capability.

The Real Gap Isn’t Technology. It’s Time.

The United States does not suffer from a shortage of AI innovation. Industry, academia, and the defense ecosystem produce cutting-edge capabilities at remarkable speed. Nor is talent the bottleneck. The challenge lies in what happens after innovation exists.

The critical delay occurs in the journey from industry to contract to operator.

Traditional acquisition processes were designed to reduce risk through predictability, documentation, and control. Those objectives still matter. But when applied rigidly to AI and cyber capabilities, they introduce a new form of risk: irrelevance.

By the time a requirement is finalized, a contract awarded, and a solution fielded, the operational problem it was meant to solve may have evolved or disappeared entirely. Meanwhile, adversaries are not waiting for milestone reviews as verified by the RAND Corporation research on AI and National Security.

RAND research underscores this dynamic in the domain of generative AI, suggesting that capability to generate and adapt influence and information operations requires acquisition frameworks that are flexible and responsive, rather than static and slow.

Adversaries Are Moving Faster, With Fewer Constraints.

This is where the comparison becomes unavoidable.

Near-peer competitors and non-state actors iterate rapidly. They deploy AI tools without the same regulatory, ethical, or bureaucratic friction. That does not make their systems better. It makes them faster. And in cyber and information domains, speed often outweighs refinement.

Agile acquisition is not an admission of failure. It is an acknowledgment of reality.

The DoW’s shift toward agile buying mechanisms reflects a strategic recalibration. Speed is no longer a secondary consideration to be optimized after compliance. It is a core requirement of national defense.

Agile Acquisition Is a Strategic Choice, Not a Process Trend.

Agile acquisition exists for one reason: to compress time between need and capability.

It enables faster prototyping, quicker iteration, and earlier operator feedback. It accepts that learning in motion is safer than waiting for perfect information. Most importantly, it recognizes that in AI-driven environments, delayed certainty is often worse than informed action.

Recent moves within the Department reinforce this mindset. U.S. Cyber Command’s appointment of its first Chief AI Officer, Reid Novotny, signals a deliberate effort to align mission needs, technical execution, and acquisition strategy under a single objective: speed to effect. This aligns with the Department’s broader push to embed AI thinking across the enterprise, as outlined by the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office.

That alignment matters. Without it, AI initiatives risk becoming technically impressive but operationally irrelevant.

A striking example of this all-in dynamic comes from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s recent remarks introducing X’s Grok AI model into the department’s AI toolset. During a speech at SpaceX, Hegseth touted the inclusion of Grok alongside other models as part of a broader effort to broaden the department’s access to cutting-edge AI capabilities and accelerate experimentation across unclassified and classified networks. That push is explicitly tied to reducing barriers and accelerating technological adoption as a national security priority, with the intent that multiple AI engines will be operational to maximize analytic and operational advantage. This approach reflects a broader shift toward embracing diverse AI sources and fast integration — a departure from traditional, centralized technology stacks and a clear signal that speed of adoption is now a defining metric for capability advantage.

This Is Not About Efficiency. It’s About Dominance.

It is tempting to frame agile acquisition as a cost-saving or efficiency play. That framing misses the point.

This is not about doing the same things faster. It is about maintaining AI and cyber dominance in an environment where the pace of change favors those willing to move.

Speed, in this context, is deterrence. It signals adaptability. It denies adversaries the comfort of predictable timelines. And it allows the DoW to shape the battlefield rather than react to it.

As acquisition leaders have noted in recent coverage, a cultural shift toward urgency — balanced with accountability — is central to sweeping acquisition reform, not an optional add-on.

What This Means for the Acquisition Workforce

For acquisition professionals, this shift carries real implications.

Subject matter expertise is no longer optional. Understanding AI, cyber operations, and digital delivery models is now mission-critical. So is the ability to evaluate partners not just on compliance, but on their capacity to deliver rapidly and iterate responsibly.

Teams that can translate operational need into executable contracts quickly will define the next era of defense capability. Those that cannot will increasingly find themselves bypassed by faster pathways.

The Defense Acquisition University maintains resources showing how AI and digital tools help acquisition professionals make faster, better-informed decisions — reinforcing that speed isn’t an abstract goal, it’s a capability enabler.

The expectation is changing. Speed is becoming a qualification requirement.

Moving Fast Is a Choice

The DoW’s embrace of agile acquisition is not about abandoning rigor. It is about applying rigor where it matters most: at the point of impact.

In the race for AI dominance, speed is indeed our friend. But only if the institution is willing to move.

AI dominance favors the fast. The question is whether the systems designed to protect national security are prepared to act like it.

Subscribe and join our community!

For more GovCon insights, thought-leadership, and subject matter expertise, join us on the Unsolicited podcast! https://www.youtube.com/@NTI-8a/podcasts

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@NTI-8a
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/namauu/