By Phil Huber, ADVANCE COLUMNIST
In 1971–72, I flew Army helicopters in Vietnam. We had been taught to fly at 1,500 feet or higher to reduce the danger from small-arms fire. Then North Vietnamese forces began using shoulder-fired missiles against helicopters. The altitude that had helped protect us from one threat could expose us to another.
We adapted by flying close to the terrain. But nap-of-the-earth flying brought its own hazards, and it was not the flying our training had prepared us to do. After 30 years in the Army, that lesson has stayed with me: A battlefield can change faster than an institution changes its training.
That is why Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Sept. 30 announcement of Project Meridian caught my attention. The 120-day study, co-led by Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich, will examine how warfare may change, identify gaps in military capabilities and propose ways to develop and field solutions. Its scope extends from underground operations to space near the Moon.
The Pentagon should look ahead. But what is it doing with the lessons troops are learning right now?
Iranian drones and missiles have damaged U.S. positions in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the Army is phasing out a battalion in Europe that was experimenting with drones and ground robots. The Army says it will collect the unit’s findings before returning it to its airborne-infantry mission. Lawmakers have asked for an explanation.
Acting Army Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve made that decision after Hegseth removed his predecessor, Gen. Randy George, who had championed the experiment. That sequence raises questions; it does not establish that Hegseth ordered LaNeve to end the program. Hegseth has also announced an Autonomous Warfare Command, expected to become functional in October 2027. Who will put the battalion’s findings to work before then?
Meridian raises a second question: Who should define the military’s future needs?
Musk’s companies have interests at both ends of the study’s map. The Boring Company builds tunnels, and SpaceX has a NASA contract to develop a lunar lander. That does not mean Meridian will recommend either company’s products. It does mean the Pentagon should explain how it will protect the study’s independence.
Musk also helped lead DOGE, which promised to account for savings from federal cuts. In August, the Government Accountability Office found that some of its published savings estimates were wrong or lacked enough evidence to verify them. A study proposing future military capabilities deserves assumptions and cost estimates that others can check.
Luckey founded Anduril, which develops autonomous and counter-drone systems. The Army has awarded his company an agreement with a ceiling of up to $20 billion over 10 years. That is the maximum value of possible orders, not money already spent. His experience is relevant—but so is his company’s interest in what the military buys next. Gingrich brings political experience, though he last served in Congress in 1999. His perspective may help the study, but no former speaker can say what Congress will fund a decade or two from now.
Meridian could produce useful ideas. Congress should ask who will challenge its conclusions, whether its leaders have disclosed relevant financial interests, and what Anduril’s existing orders have delivered. It should also ask what the Army’s drone battalion learned and how those lessons will reach other units.
I learned in Vietnam that adapting to a new threat takes more than changing a flight path. Troops need tactics, training and time to practice them. The Pentagon should study tomorrow’s battlefield—but it must not set aside what soldiers are learning on today’s.
***
Phil Huber is a retired Army Reserve colonel, a federal civil servant, and a retired consultant who writes on civic education. He lives in Fredericksburg.
