This article introduces administrative translation of force as a formal effect of AI-mediated military and security discourse. The concept describes a transformation in which violence, occupation, surveillance, targeting, or coercive control remains semantically present but is re-expressed through the operational vocabulary of risk management, target validation, collateral estimation, proportionality assessment, escalation control, security response, or optimization. The claim is not that these categories are inherently illegitimate. Modern armed forces require procedures for target development, legal review, civilian-harm mitigation, and decision support, and international governance frameworks increasingly insist that human responsibility and judgment remain traceable when artificial intelligence is used in military decision-making. The analytical problem begins when procedural language changes the grammatical architecture through which force is recognized: actors become systems, decisions become thresholds, attacks become operations, civilian harm becomes an estimate, and responsibility becomes distributed across models, scores, intelligence pipelines, and authorization chains. The article uses Gaza-related reporting on the reported military use of AI-enabled decision-support systems as its principal empirical anchor, while Iran-Israel and United States security discourse function as comparative environments for examining the language of precision, pre-emption, targets, threat, escalation, and operational necessity. It does not infer undisclosed technical use from political language, and it treats contested claims about specific systems as reported claims rather than established technical facts. Building on prior work on responsibility loss, asymmetric visibility, and political-subjecthood reduction, the paper argues that operational syntax can preserve factual description while weakening the linguistic traceability of force, decision, civilian consequence, and institutional agency (Startari, 2025a, 2026a, 2026b, 2026e). Methodologically, the paper proposes Operationalization Density (OD) and a Force Optimization Index (FOI). OD measures how frequently clauses about force are structured through administrative, predictive, proportionality-based, or optimization-oriented categories. FOI measures the combined degree of action nominalization, system-mediated responsibility, civilian-harm compression, operational-necessity framing, and decision-chain opacity. The framework is explicitly falsifiable: if operationalization occurs at comparable rates across actors, source genres, and power positions, or if source texts already contain the same structure, the stronger geopolitical interpretation must be narrowed. AI ethics and military-AI governance should therefore ask not only whether systems are accurate, explainable, or lawful, but whether the language surrounding their outputs preserves the chain through which force is chosen, applied, experienced, and attributed.