MAX THEORY // ANALYSIS
š§ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What appears to be a technical recommendation from a retired Pentagon official is, in reality, part of a broader information warfare campaign ā designed to shape defense policy, normalize public-private AI dependency, and shift battlefield control to closed-source ecosystems.
Few citizens realize that strategic influence operations are being carried out in plain sight ā not through coercion, but through soft power, carefully crafted language, and credentialed authority. This report breaks down how it works, who benefits, and why it matters.
šµļøāāļø THE CASE: Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahanās Op-Ed
“Once the U.S. military fields an AI-enabled system, there needs to be a plan to make continuous updates ā just like any other AI software.”
On its surface, this statement is logical and benign. But beneath it lies a sophisticated mechanism for entrenching private tech control within the warfighting apparatus.
Shanahan, former head of the Pentagonās Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC), is now a civilian voice ā but still very much embedded in the defense-AI industrial complex. When he speaks, he’s not just offering opinion. He’s shaping policy.
š TOOLS OF THE INFO WAR
| TOOL | FUNCTION |
|---|---|
| Credibility Warfare | Use of military rank and former position to disarm critical inquiry |
| Narrative Normalization | Frames AI as routine, manageable, inevitable ā avoiding ethical/moral scrutiny |
| Policy Seeding | Embeds long-term strategies (like lifecycle AI updates) into public consciousness early |
| Soft Directive Framing | āThis must happenā language subtly nudges adoption paths without formal mandate |
šÆ WHO BENEFITS?
| Actor | Motivation |
|---|---|
| Defense Tech Contractors (Anduril, Palantir, Rebellion) | Recurring contracts for AI lifecycle services and battlefield software |
| Private Cloud Giants (Google, AWS, Microsoft) | Secure long-term, classified workloads under the guise of “operational continuity” |
| Policy Shapers (CNAS, CSIS, DIU) | Maintain relevance, funding, and proximity to procurement decisions |
| Government AI Programs | Justify budget expansion by framing AI as āfragile if unmanagedā |
These actors donāt need to conspire ā their incentives naturally align.
ā ļø THE REAL BATTLEFIELD: CONTROL OF THE PIPELINE
Shanahanās real message?
The future of warfare is not just who has the best AI ā itās who controls the update schedule.
By framing AI systems as needing continuous software maintenance:
- Military command becomes reliant on external tech vendors
- National security is quietly moved to closed-source infrastructure
- Operational sovereignty is traded for speed and efficiency
This is how digital dependency becomes national policy.
š§ WHY NO ONEāS TALKING ABOUT IT
Most Americans still picture war as boots-on-ground or missile-versus-missile. They donāt see the war for:
- Model weights
- Data pipelines
- Deployment access
- Influence over the AI lifecycle
The new weapons arenāt physical. Theyāre contractual.
And the battleground is your blind spot.
š§ MAX THEORY RECOMMENDATIONS
- Track affiliations of retired officials who promote post-service AI narratives.
- Demand lifecycle transparency: Who owns the model weights? Who updates them? Who monitors misuse?
- Expose dependency pipelines: Make it clear where and how tech contractors lock in their control.
- Educate the public about AIās new role in strategic deterrence, command systems, and warfighting autonomy.
š FINAL THOUGHT
This isnāt a conspiracy theory. Itās a convergence of aligned interests, masked by expert language and bureaucratic subtlety.
The only way to stay ahead is to decode the signals and reveal the structure behind the screen.
If the system must update itself to stay alive, then whoever controls the update controls the future.
#MaxTheory // MaxTheory.net Decoding the Future. Monitoring the Machine State.