Integrating GenAI and Strategic 

Foresight for 21st Century 

National Security

LtCol Jake Sotiriadis, Ph.D.

Today’s political leaders are using military force as a go-to solution for 

geopolitical disputes in Ukraine, Gaza, and beyond. This assertiveness is 

not confined to isolated regions; it is an emergent global phenomenon. 

Victory in these and future conflicts requires pivoting to a foresight-based 

approach that informs strategies rooted in a deep understanding of 

complex global dynamics. Building a generative-artificial intelligence

(GenAI)-powered “cognitive operating system” to navigate uncertainty 

can harness GenAI’s ability to synthesize vast arrays of data into 

coherent, actionable insights. Integrating GenAI with strategic foresight 

will bolster the US national security ecosystem’s capacity to think, act, 

and adapt in an unpredictable, ever-changing global landscape.

RESEARCH SHORT

March 14, 2024

What this is:

This report is the product of 

academic research. As the IC’s 

university, NIU is uniquely 

positioned to use academic 

approaches to research—and 

report on—subjects of interest 

to the community.

What this is not:

This is not finished intelligence. 

The opinions expressed in this 

report are solely the author’s 

and not those of National 

Intelligence University, or any 

other US Government agency.

CATALYST Designed to spark positive 

conversations on the future of the IC 

IMAGE FROM SHUTTERSTOCK
2

21st Century Global Complexity and Perpetual Conflict

The violence ravaging the Middle East and Ukraine in 2024 highlights the inadequacy of linear 

thinking in a global landscape marred by destabilizing factors that transcend security politics. 

These multiplying flashpoints underscore a world in “polycrisis”—one beset by converging 

economic, geopolitical, and technological disruptions that confound traditional security 

paradigms.1 Yet the US intelligence and military communities persist in applying outdated 

mental models to these new challenges, which transcend traditional statecraft. The national 

security ecosystem needs a fundamental upgrade to its strategic analysis and foresight 

capabilities to better anticipate change in this complex world. Only by revolutionizing how we 

perceive, act, and adapt can we forge a comprehensive strategic synthesis—that applies not just 

to today’s challenges but also to the unforeseen trials of tomorrow. It demands leaders who think 

in systems, wield technology with foresight, and navigate uncertainty with vision.

Hybrid threats that blend digital misinformation with physical conflict are testing the national 

security enterprise’s readiness. Less than a year ago—in May 2023—AI-generated images of 

a nonexistent explosion at the Pentagon spread like wildfire across the Internet.2 Their impact 

quickly jumped beyond the immediate sphere of national security to the financial sector when 

the stock market opened and the Standard & Poor’s 500 index immediately (if modestly) fell.

3

This complex interplay between digital misinformation, national security, and the economy

should warn us that a single move—real or fabricated—can have instant cascading effects 

across multiple domains.

Indeed, complexity remainsthe only constant, with “wicked problems”

*

defying the boundaries 

of traditional, clearly defined solutions.4 Such complexity precludes straightforward answers

or one-size-fits-all strategies that can untangle the dense web of emergent phenomena. Simply 

wielding the most superior technology—often the default solution for the United States—

cannot guarantee success without a strategic framework that accounts for the interdependence 

of global phenomena.

A GenAI-Powered Cognitive Operating System

for the 21st Century

In an era when the volume and speed of information exceeds human ability to comprehend it, 

national security demands more than smartphone-like applications that offer instant solutions. 

More fundamentally, our efforts must begin with the true “hardware” of our human capital—

the minds of our people. In computer science, an operating system is a program that acts as an 

interface between the computer user and computer hardware and controls the execution of 

programs.5Just as a computer’s operating system serves as a critical interface between the user 

and the machine’s hardware, so, too, must we develop a cognitive operating system within 

national security contexts. This system’s “circuits” are the mental processes and frameworks 

* Wicked problems are complex social or cultural problems with an unknown number of potential solutions.

Horst Ritiel, Milvin Webber, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” Policy Sciences 4 (1973): 155–169.
3

that intelligence and military personnel use to navigate complexity, critically evaluate 

information, challenge preconceived notions, and identify inherent biases. The system is 

“programmed” to reject superficial analyses in favor of profound comprehension, mirroring 

the way a computer runs diagnostics to detect and mitigate vulnerabilities.

In a national security context, such a system ensures familiarity with foresight-based 

frameworks that emphasize adaptability and a tolerance for uncertainty.

6 By leveraging these 

tools, individuals and organizations can better anticipate shifts, prepare for unanticipated

outcomes, and navigate the ambiguity that defines the current era.

7 The outcome can be a set 

of well-considered, strategic decisions that enhance national security and address the 

multifaceted challenges posed by a given challenge or crisis.

Today, we are on the cusp of a transformative shift with the advent of GenAI tools.8 Advanced 

algorithms can process and analyze vast quantities of data faster than any human, identifying 

patterns and connections that might otherwise go unnoticed. 

Relying on automation alone, however, overlooks a critical 

aspect of “sensemaking” defined as the need for contextualized

knowledge. Our ability to understand the story comes from 

deep knowledge of cultural, historical, geopolitical, and human 

factors that algorithms cannot yet fully grasp. Context matters. 

The same event can have different implications in different parts of the world, and cultural and 

historical nuances often shape these interpretations. Human experts can put things into context, 

something that automated systems are far from replicating.9

The ideal balance in the cognitive operating system is to harness both the power of GenAI, 

including advanced language models, and human-inspired context to enhance strategic 

foresight of risk and opportunity. This system rests on three pillars:

1. Seeing the interconnectivity of events.

2. Challenging the status quo.

3. Embracing analytic complexity in decisionmaking.

This approach underscores the importance of human cognitive capabilities in managing and 

responding to global security challenges, where computational tools aid—but do not replace—

the nuanced understanding and critical thinking skills of human actors. Military and 

intelligence personnel will need to be able to connect disparate pieces of information, identify 

patterns and anomalies, and craft potential future scenarios in tandem with GenAI tools.10

GenAI tools are instrumental to this partnership in the following ways:

• Discerning foundational scenarios by identifying trends in the data to establish a robust 

starting point for planning.

• Applying predictive analytics to extensive databases to craft scenarios in line with 

evolving trends that enhance the accuracy and vision of planning efforts.

Sensemaking is not just about connecting 

dots; it is about understanding the story 

those dots tell.
4

• Contributing novel ideas and potential strategies, adding depth to strategic thinking.

• Simplifying the integration of multiple scenarios to streamline the planning and riskassessment process.

• Offering critical analysis of possible strategies for handling potential scenarios to 

identify the most effective options for organizational resilience.11

The Pillars of a GenAI-Powered Cognitive Operating System

Pillar 1: Seeing the Interconnectivity of Events

Recognizing the intricate and often subtle links among occurrences in different domains or 

regions is fundamental to developing a broad and interconnected view of global events. This 

interconnectivity requires intelligence analysts and strategists to consider a broader range of 

variables and potential consequences when assessing threats and developing opportunities to 

counter them. Today’s interconnected reality provides endless examples of how a seemingly 

insignificant event in a remote location or domain can quickly trigger a major crisis: a rogue 

algorithm in a stock-trading system triggers a financial meltdown; a cyber attack on a smart 

grid plunges cities and towns into darkness; or a faux pas on social media escalates into a fullblown conflict.

This pillar is pivotal in spotting cause-and-effect patterns that span disparate domains and 

geographies. Exploiting this capability requires a multidisciplinary approach to problemsolving and decisionmaking that considers historical precedents, current events, and deeply 

contextualized projections. This perspective aids in identifying nonobvious relationships and 

dependencies that might not be quickly apparent but are crucial for a complete understanding 

of the situation at hand.

Pillar 2: Challenging the Status Quo

A cultural shift is needed within the national security enterprise to foster an environment where 

questioning and creative thinking are encouraged. It portends a rigorous reassessment of 

entrenched strategies, doctrines, and tactics, paving the way for groundbreaking approaches 

that may starkly diverge from conventional military and intelligence paradigms. Embracing 

such innovation requires more than an openness to change; it demands an institutional 

transformation that places a premium on disruptive thinking. The intelligence and military 

communities must cultivate a climate that actively encourages exploring unorthodox ideas and 

constructive dissent to bring about a strategic evolution. This environment should reward 

adaptability, promote continuous learning, and encourage collaboration across diverse 

disciplines; harnessing insights from technology, psychology, and other fields to enrich 

strategic thought processes.

The national security enterprise has taken steps to create a military “Internet of Things.”

Initiatives, such as the Joint Warfighting Concept and Joint All-Domain Command and Control,
5

are commendable efforts to integrate digital connectivity into military operations.12 This digital 

makeover aims to enhance the US military’s ability to communicate and make swift decisions 

in conflict scenarios, especially against peer adversaries. Big data and AI are at the forefront 

of this transformation, designed to synchronize sensors and shooters across multiple domains.13

This solution, however, like so many before it, is platform-centric—not human-centric.

To its credit, the Joint Staff, in “Developing Today’s Joint Officers for Tomorrow’s Ways of 

War” highlights an urgent need to reform the training and development of military personnel.14

Notably, the document introduces the concept of intellectual overmatch, which emphasizes the 

need for superior cognitive capabilities in future conflicts. 15 But, talk is cheap. The real

challenge lies in evolving this concept from paper to practice—devising actionable steps and 

measurable criteria to cultivate and deploy these advanced cognitive skills in global conflict 

and security operations. For now, the US military and IC are betting on big tech to deliver the 

goods, but that only addresses half of this equation. Upgrading digital platforms, while 

necessary, is far from sufficient because our current cognitive operating system—characterized 

by highly structured, linear thinking—is ill-suited to the shifting nature of modern conflict.

Pillar 3: Embracing Analytic Complexity in Decisionmaking

Understanding complexity theory—which suggests that diverse, 

interconnected elements can lead to unpredictable behavior and 

emergent phenomena in large systems17—is critical because national 

security is no longer about linear cause-and-effect scenarios. Rather, it 

involves multifaceted threats that require deep analytical insight to 

identify patterns and anticipate changes. These threats can rapidly 

evolve and adapt, reflecting the dynamic interplay of myriad factors—

from geopolitical shifts to technological advancements. Unlike the first 

pillar, which focuses on seeing connections, this pillar delves into the 

complexities of systems where countless interrelated factors lead to 

unpredictable outcomes. Imagine a cyber security breach where the 

ripple effect impacts not just digital infrastructure but also political 

relations and market stability. Embracing analytic complexity trains 

intelligence analysts to decode intricate scenarios, in which 

multifaceted threats evolve rapidly and demand deep understanding to 

foresee shifts and patterns in a world where change is the only constant.

How Would the Cognitive Operating System Function in Practice?

A notional scenario can illustrate how a GenAI-powered cognitive operating system might 

function. Under this scenario, national security practitioners are dealing with an emerging 

geopolitical situation and prompt the large language model to provide insights into unforeseen 

second- and third-order effects of potential policy decisions and actions:

Nearly 25 years ago, the world 

braced for a crisis born from 

underestimating a system’s 

complexity. The Y2K bug at the 

turn of the century held the 

potential for global upheaval, 

rooted not in advancing armies or 

the ambitions of dictators but in 

two missing digits in computer 

date codes. Think about that—just 

two digits! The dreaded digital 

glitch that threatened to hurl our 

technologically dependent society 

into chaos was an early testament 

to the highly interwoven fabric of 

a globalized world.16
6

Background: In the autonomous region of Zephyria, a new political movement, the Aeolian 

Bloc, advocates for increased autonomy and challenges the central governmental authority. 

Intelligence reporting indicates possible foreign influence, yet specifics remain elusive. Social 

media in Zephyria is buzzing with dissent, and regional powers are taking an unusual interest 

in the developing situation.

Introducing the Cognitive Operating System: The security community uses its GenAI-powered 

cognitive operating system to synthesize strategic insights from vast data sources, including

satellite imagery, communications intercepts, and open source intelligence. Personnel, steeped in 

strategic foresight and futures literacy, conduct horizon scanning, build emerging trend analysis, 

examine historical and cultural contexts, and pinpoint sources of disruption.

The Situation Unfolds: A sudden, unexplained electricity blackout in Zephyria’s capital 

coincides with unusual stock trading in commodities endemic to Zephyria. In response, social 

media is rife with contradictory reports of a coup, an extraterrestrial event, and a targeted 

cyber attack.

GenAI's Role: The GenAI system identifies connections across these anomalies. It highlights 

the digital signature of a sophisticated misinformation campaign, correlates the trading 

anomalies with past economic warfare tactics, and pinpoints the cyber vulnerability exploited 

during the blackout.

Open-Ended Scenario for Planners: National security teams examine the GenAI’s findings, 

but the intent behind these disruptions remains unclear, as does the identity of the instigators.

The teams must now anticipate possible outcomes—from peaceful demonstrations to a fullblown geopolitical crisis—considering both internal and external actors’ motivations.

Key Questions for the Intelligence and Military Communities To Assess:

1. How might different foreign actors benefit from instability in Zephyria?

2. What are the blackout’s second- and third-order effects on regional security and global 

markets?

3. Which indicators would suggest a misinformation campaign as a prelude to a larger 

strategic move?

4. How can we differentiate between genuine social unrest and synthetic agitation fueled 

by external forces?

5. In what ways might our response to this event set a precedent for future crises?

Leaving the scenario open-ended and focusing on these probing questions will enable planners 

to stimulate anticipatory thinking and strategic foresight and encourage a deeper engagement 

with the complex dynamics of modern geopolitics.
7

Implications: Rewiring the Hardware—Not Just 

a New Smartphone Application

It is still largely business as usual in the national security enterprise, even after the strategic 

failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, a global pandemic, and resurging conflicts in Ukraine and the 

Middle East. Without a cognitive operating system able to contextualize and anticipate the 

complexities of our digital age, we are sailing blind in a storm of our own making. National 

security personnel must be able to connect disparate pieces of information, identify patterns 

and anomalies, and craft potential future scenarios in tandem with GenAI tools.18

Although it is tempting to try to develop a “smartphone app” solution that promises quick fixes 

to deeply rooted problems, we must upgrade our “hardware” of human capital, providing our 

people with a cognitive transformation that transcends the superficial. Doing so would involve 

the cultivation of a workforce both technologically proficient with GenAI tools and 

intellectually robust—one capable of navigating the intricacies of an increasingly complex 

world with strategic foresight and nuanced understanding. This new operating system of the 

mind, integrated seamlessly into the daily operational culture of our institutions, would greatly 

enhance strategic thinking and problem-solving capabilities. 

We must overhaul training and education in this GenAI-dominated era, shifting from quantitydriven analysis to quality-driven interpretation. Training programs must focus on developing 

deep regional and subject matter expertise, critical thinking skills, and an understanding 

of strategic foresight methodologies to create a work force more adept at interpreting and 

contextualizing information in a rapidly changing global landscape.

This century’s volatile opening chapters presage more upheaval ahead as converging 

disruptions plunge the world deeper into polycrisis. We can continue to default to outdated 

strategic paradigms that fuel endless wars, or we can fundamentally transform the national 

security enterprise’s “cognitive operating system.” The imperative for change is clear. We must 

equip our military and intelligence communities with tools more attuned to the complex threat 

landscape they navigate. By embracing agile, informed, and anticipatory thinking, we can 

cultivate the foresight needed to preempt crises, not just react to conflicts. The digital age 

demands leaders who can position the workforce not only to win today’s wars but also prevent 

tomorrow’s. This requires investing in our people as much as the technology they wield. Their 

minds—not just materiel—will determine success in future conflicts.

Dr. Jake Sotiriadis is director of NIU’s Center for Futures Intelligence in the Caracristi Institute and 

director of Operations and Engagement for NIU’s iRES (Intelligence, Research, Education, and Solutions) 

laboratory.

If you have comments, questions, or suggestions for a Research Short topic or article, please contact 

the NIU Office of Research at NIPress@niu.odni.gov.
8

Endnotes

1 “This Is Why ‘Polycrisis’ Is a Useful Way of Looking at the World Right Now,” World Economic Forum, March 

7, 2023, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/polycrisis-adam-tooze-historian-explains/.

2 Franciso Guzman, “Explosion Near Pentagon Never Happened, Officials Say, After Fake AI Picture Circulated 

Online,” USA Today, May 24, 2023, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/05/23/fake-pentagonexplosion-picture-ai-generated/70247245007/.

3 Teresa Rivas, “An AI-Generated Pentagon Image Caused a Brief Panic in the Stock Market,” Barron’s, May 23, 

2023, https://www.barrons.com/articles/ai-fake-pentagon-explosion-stock-market-fdaafd77.

4 Thomas Homer-Dixon et al., “A Complex Systems Approach to the Study of Ideology: Cognitive-Affective 

Structures, and the Dynamics of Belief Systems,” Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 2013, vol. 1(1), 

337–363.

5 “Understanding Operating Systems,” University of Wollongong (Australia), https://www.uow.edu.au/student/ 

learning-co-op/technology-and-software/operation-systems.

6 For more on strategic foresight methodologies, see: Wendell Bell, Foundations of Futures Studies: Human Science 

for a New Era, vol. 1, Transaction Publishers, 1997; James Dator, World Futures Review, vol. 7, no. 4, December 

2015; Jennifer Gidley, The Future: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2017).

7 Jairus Grove, Jacob Sotiriadis et al., “Global Futures Report: Alternative Futures of Geopolitical Competition in a 

Post-Covid World,” Headquarters, United States Air Force A5/7, June 2020, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/

AD1108029.pdf.

8 M. Gupta et al., “From ChatGPT to ThreatGPT: Impact of Generative AI in Cybersecurity and Privacy,” IEEE 

Access, 2023, vol. 11, 80218–45.

9 Joe McKendrick and Andy Thurai, “AI Isn’t Ready to Make Unsupervised Decisions,” Harvard Business Review, 

September 15th, 2022, https://hbr.org/2022/09/ai-isnt-ready-to-make-unsupervised-decisions.

10 D. Finkenstadt, T. Eapen, J. Sotiriadis, P. Guinto, “Use GenAI To Improve Scenario Planning,” Harvard Business 

Review, November 30, 2023, https://hbr.org/2023/11/use-genai-to-improve-scenario-planning.

11 D. Finkenstadt, J. Sotiriadis, P. Guinto, T. Eapen, “Contingency Scenario Planning Using Generative AI,” 

California Management Review, January 22, 2024, https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2024/01/contingency-scenarioplanning-using-generative-ai/.

12 Department of Defense, “Summary of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control Strategy,” March 2022, 

https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/17/2002958406/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-THE-JOINT-ALL-DOMAINCOMMAND-AND-CONTROL-STRATEGY.PDF.

13 Jon Harper, “US Military Publishes New Joint Warfighting Doctrine,” Defensescoop, September 13, 2023, 

https://defensescoop.com/2023/09/13/us-military-publishes-new-joint-warfighting-doctrine/.

14 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Developing Today’s Joint Officers for Tomorrow’s Ways of War,” May 1, 2020, 

https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/education/jcs_pme_tm_vision.pdf?ver=2020-05-15-102429-817.

15 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Developing Today’s Joint Officers.”

16 Frederick E. Allen, “Apocalypse Then: When Y2K Didn’t Lead To the End of Civilization,” Forbes, December 29, 

2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2020/12/29/apocalypse-then-when-y2k-didnt-lead-to-the-end-ofcivilization/.

17 R. Sun, ed., Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction: From Cognitive Modeling to Social Simulation, (Cambridge, 

MA: MIT Press, 2006).

18 Finkenstadt, Eapen, Sotiriadis, Guinto, “Use GenAI To Improve Scenario Planning.”