The US Army’s second rebirth: From post-Vietnam to post-GWOT

As we look at the Army’s transformation in 2025 under united leadership, it’s impossible to miss the echoes of the painful yet ultimately fruitful decade that followed the Vietnam war. Then, as now, a bruised force staggered home from a frustrating war, only to find that its real test lay ahead in rebuilding for the future.

To do so, leaders at the Pentagon and within the Army must not only build on recent momentum to drastically improve everything from technological innovation to cooperation with industry but they need to team together to provide the sorely needed funding.

In the late 1970s, the Army faced a crisis of confidence, resources, and people. The humiliations of Vietnam were compounded by what became known as the “hollow force.” By 1979, discipline problems, drug abuse, and low morale were pervasive. The Army, just transitioning to the all-volunteer force, faced a recruiting shortfall so severe that it risked lacking the soldiers needed to defend NATO against a Soviet threat that remained very real.

Yet the Army did not remain static. A major catalyst for change came not from Washington but from the Middle East. The 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which Israeli forces battled Egyptian and Syrian armies equipped with modern Soviet weapons, shocked American military planners. The conflict underscored the lethality of air defense missiles, the importance of electronic warfare, and the devastating effectiveness of armored warfare when combined with well-integrated artillery.

Out of that period of reflection emerged the Army’s renaissance. Out of that renaissance came “Big Five” weapons systems−the Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, Black Hawk and Apache helicopters, and the Patriot missile system−which formed the backbone of American land power for decades.

Just as important was the intellectual rebirth in the AirLand Battle doctrine, which fused maneuver, deep fires, and joint integration, and the professionalization of the non-commissioned officer corps. Together, these reforms prepared the Army for success in the Gulf War and helped deter Soviet aggression until the Cold War’s end.

Fast forward to today, and the parallels are striking. After two decades of counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan the Army finds itself again at a crossroads. By 2023, the service faced the worst recruiting crisis in half a century. The disconnect between the military and much of American society had widened, and the Army struggled to articulate why it mattered in an era where many young Americans questioned whether wars abroad were worth fighting.

Once again, the real wake-up call came from overseas. The Russian invasion of Ukraine turned into a grinding, high-casualty war that defied predictions of rapid and overwhelming victory. For military professionals, Ukraine was a grim but invaluable laboratory: it showcased the importance of cheap drones and resilient communications as well as the need for dispersed logistics under constant surveillance and the return of large-scale artillery duels. The message was clear; the US Army had to change.

Today, in 2025, we are witnessing the Army’s second rebirth. This time, the transformation is defined by technology and flexibility. The Army is incorporating autonomous systems to extend reach and reduce risk to soldiers. Artificial intelligence supports decision-making and targeting. Hypersonic weapons and long-range precision fires are reshaping operational concepts. The new doctrine embraces multi-domain operations, recognizing that future conflicts will unfold simultaneously across land, air, sea, space, and cyberspace.

Critically, the Army is starting to reconnect with American industry. It is drawing talent from technology and cyber sectors while also enticing the trillion-dollar tech companies to build its digital backbone. The service even says it’s clearing recruiting goals ahead of time.

Yet even as we celebrate progress, history teaches us that transformation must be sustained. The Army’s rebirth in the 1980s succeeded not just because of new equipment but because of sustained commitment: resources, leadership, and a willingness to challenge old ways of thinking.

Here are several recommendations to help ensure the Army’s current transformation fulfills its promise:

First, the secretary of defense must remain committed to the Army as he builds the fiscal 2027 budget and distributes the recently enacted reconciliation funds. Within the halls of the Pentagon are those who, seeing long-distance naval and air battles in the Pacific as the only conflict the military should prepare for, wish to dismantle the Army’s funding and end strength. Success must be rewarded, and the Army is on the right track. Only Secretary Pete Hegseth and Deputy Secretary Steve Feinberg can protect the Army.

The Army only received about 5 percent of the recent $150 billion-plus within the reconciliation process, however, Hegseth received about $50 billion that is under his control.  About $15 billion of that $50 billion should be allocated to the Army to resource drones, communication gear, and munitions.

Next, the Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll must reform how the service does acquisition. Now that the Army has the right requirements and funding for new technology, the only thing standing in its way is its process of acquiring it. The Army acquisition community needs dramatic and rapid reform. Only Driscoll can do that.

Finally, Gen. Randy George, the Army chief of staff, must continue to infuse a culture of change into the Army that puts engineers and soldiers together to drive modernization. He seems to be well on his way there, turning the once sacrosanct training centers into laboratories of innovation. The next generation of Army leaders must be rewarded for experimentation and agility, while ensuring that the institutional bureaucracy enables innovation and does not stifle it.

The Army’s journey from Vietnam to Desert Storm showed that renewal is possible even after strategic disappointment. Today, after the long shadow of the post-9/11 wars, the Army is once again on the cusp of transformation. With sustained commitment, bold thinking, and public support, this rebirth can build a force ready to deter and, if necessary, defeat the threats of tomorrow.

Yet as the Army charts this course, the president must beware of the modern sirens’ call: voices who argue that the Army should shrink dramatically, focusing solely on a conflict with China and leaving ground forces as an afterthought. History teaches that seductive simplicity often masks real danger.

True “Peace through Strength” comes not by abandoning balance, but by building an Army that is both technologically advanced and large enough to meet the unpredictable demands of a still-dangerous world.

Maj. Gen. John Ferrari, US Army (ret.), is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and is the former director of program analysis and evaluation for the US Army.