More than PSYOPS

The contemporary battlespace is undergoing a profound transformation in its fundamental logic. As highlighted by Bill Gertz in a recent The Washington Times article reporting on Pentagon initiatives toward cognitive warfare, the United States (US) is actively exploring capabilities designed to “subdue the enemy without fighting”, emphasizing non-kinetic means that directly target human cognition as both the terrain and objective of conflict.  This is not simply an evolution in tactics or the use of emergent technology. Rather, cognitive warfare represents a decisive shift in engagement that leverages information to inform, deceive, and thereby influence the underlying neural processes that are involved in thought, emotion, and behavior (viz- functions that when taken together can be considered constitute the “mind”). In this sense, the battlespace now extends into the neurobiological substrates of the human brain~mind to affect the psychosocial dynamics of targeted individuals and collectives.

To be sure, using techniques to affect the “mind” of the adversary is not new to military missions. Traditional information operations (IO) and psychological operations (PSYOPS) have sought to shape perceptions and influence decision-making. But cognitive warfare moves beyond the control of information flows to target how information is processed. As current doctrine and analysis suggest, the objective is “not what individuals think, but rather, the way they think”. This distinction is critical. Whereas IO and PSYOPS aim to alter beliefs or attitudes, cognitive warfare focuses upon affecting perception, judgment, emotional valence, and ultimately decision-making and actions. It is therefore more accurately understood as an operationalization of (sensory, perceptual, cognitive, behavioral and social) neurosciences within executable tactics and strategic power domains. The goal is to degrade the adversary’s ability to perceive reality accurately, to reason effectively, and to act coherently, thereby eroding the foundational elements of organized execution of force and/or resistance.

The Brain as Battlespace

To appreciate the implications of cognitive warfare, it is important to recognize that the human brain has become both a target and vector of these operations. Advances in neuroscience, data analytics, and artificial intelligence (AI) enable increasingly precise mapping of cognitive vulnerabilities, ranging from bias and heuristics to stress responses and social identity dynamics. Cognitive warfare exploits these vulnerabilities through tactics that use information (i.e.- whether true, false, or ambiguous) to induce specific neural and psychological effects. These may include:

• Cognitive overload, toward degrading information processing and decision-making capacity

• Emotional manipulation, which biases judgment under conditions of uncertainty and/or fear

• Narrative shaping to alter perception of veridicality, legitimacy, trust, and authority

• Behavioral priming to influence actions at both individual and group levels.

Such approaches can be engaged both singularly and in combination to concomitantly influence thinking, feeling, and behavior, often producing cascading effects in and across social systems. Thus, I’ve argued that cognitive warfare is inherently bio-psycho-social in its foci, mechanisms and outcomes.

A defining feature of cognitive warfare is the ability to generate both individual-level and collective-level effects. At the individual level, targeted cognitive operations can impair attention, distort perception, and bias decision-making in ways that can manifest as degraded situational awareness, compromised judgment, and/or reduced morale and will to fight. For military and political leaders, this may lead to flawed assessments and suboptimal choices.

At the collective level, the effects can be even more consequential. By shaping collective narratives and exploiting social distinctions, cognitive warfare can undermine trust in institutions, fracture social cohesion, and impair the collective will necessary for coordinated action. In the extreme, it can induce cognitive disintegration, wherein a group becomes unable to generate consensus and sustain effective collaboration required for coordinated activity or governance.

Such outcomes can directly affect the exercise and sustenance of power. Military capability is contingent upon the cognitive and social integrity of both the force and the society it serves. By targeting these dimensions, cognitive warfare seeks to disrupt an adversary’s ability to mobilize, coordinate, and sustain operations; without necessarily engaging in kinetic conflict.

The Changing Character of Engagement

It is essential to distinguish between the nature of war (viz.- enduring aspects of exercised power, combativeness, uncertainty, and political purpose), and the character of war, which reflects how these elements are expressed in a given era. Cognitive warfare does not change the nature of war, but I posit that it profoundly alters its character. Historically, shifts in the character of war have been driven by technological innovation (e.g. -the longbow, gunpowder, mechanization, aircraft; nuclear weapons, and most recently, cyber capabilities). Each introduced new ways of projecting power, operationalizing tactics, and achieving strategic objectives. Cognitive warfare represents the next inflection point.

This shift has several implications:

1. Blurring Distinctions of War and Peace
Cognitive operations can be conducted continuously, below the threshold of armed conflict, and covertly or clandestinely, making it difficult to define and delineate if and when “warfare” begins or ends.

2. Expansion of the Battlespace
The battlespace now includes military forces and targetable civilian populations, accessible and engaged via information ecosystems and social networks.

3. Ambiguity of Attribution
The sources and mechanisms of cognitive attacks are often difficult to identify, complicating deterrence and response (see also 1, above, and 4, below).

4. Primacy of Influence over Force
Success is being measured less by physical destruction, and more by the ability to shape perceptions, decisions, and behaviors. This can complicate questions of both “directness” of attribution (i.e.- how much of changes in cognition, emotion and behavior could be explicitly “due” to a particular cognitive engagement), and even if/when attribution is possible, what constitutes proportionality of response.

As noted in other analyses of cognitive warfare (see, for example, several notable essays that have recently been published in the Small Wars Journal) and as reported in Gertz’s piece in the Washington Times, the objective is to achieve strategic effect(s) by influencing cognition and behavior, thereby enabling adversaries to “subdue” targets and gain (and retain) advantage without resorting to overt force. In these ways, cognitive warfare can be metaphorically likened more to the game of Go, rather than chess.

Operational and Strategic Implications

In this light, I posit that the iterative engagement of cognitive warfare will necessitate re-evaluation of doctrine, training, and force design in and along four principal dimensions.

First, there is a need to integrate cognitive considerations to operational planning. This includes a more thorough understanding the cognitive terrain and its cultural, psychological, and informational factors that shape how individuals and groups perceive and respond to events.

Second, forces must develop both defensive and offensive cognitive capabilities. Defensive capabilities involve resilience to protect US and allied personnel and populations from cognitive manipulation and ensure the integrity of decision-making processes. Offensive capabilities involve developing and exercising capabilities to influence adversaries’ cognition in ways that support strategic objectives.

Third, any genuine effort toward such enterprise will require interdisciplinary expertise. Cognitive warfare entails the intersection of neuroscience, psychology, data science, AI/cybertechnology and military strategic planning and operational execution. Effective engagement in the cognitive domain will necessitate collaboration across these fields, as well as the prudent integration of emergent technologies and methods (e.g.- quantum sensing and computing; terrestrial and space-based unmanned ISR and informational delivery platforms).

Last, but certainly not least, ethical considerations and concerns arising in and from cognitive engagement(s) must be addressed. The ability to influence cognition raises questions about “cognitive liberties”, neurorights, autonomy, consent, and the boundaries of acceptable conduct in (and/or to prevent) war.  These issues must be carefully regarded to ensure that the pursuit of strategic advantage does not undermine the values that US military forces are sworn to uphold and defend.

Conclusion

Cognitive warfare represents a paradigmatic shift in the character of engagement that redefines the battlespace, the objectives of conflict, and the means by which power can be exercised. By leveraging information to influence the neural processes underlying thought, emotion, and behavior, it enables the generation of biological, psychological, and social effects that can disrupt an adversary’s capabilities, and lead to cascading destructive manifestations in individual collective, populational scales and in military, socio-economic, and political spheres. Thus, the implications are clear that near-term future conflicts will not be decided solely by who controls territory or annihilates assets, but by who can most effectively shape the cognitive realm in which decisions are made and actions are executed.