Braxton Taylor
<![CDATA[
War has shifted far beyond the realm of traditional kinetic operations. We now face an era defined by what experts call cognitive warfare, an insidious form of conflict aimed at influencing how people think and act, destabilizing the very bedrock of democratic institutions and national security.
Unlike information warfare, which manipulates what we think, cognitive warfare disrupts the way we think—rationality itself. It uses neuroscience, data analytics, and algorithm-based strategies to achieve strategic advantage. Developing a framework to counter this threat is not just essential; it is urgent.
Potential adversaries are working hard to extend their advantage in this relatively new domain. China’s military thinkers talk openly about the pursuit of “biological dominance” and “cognitive control.” They deploy sophisticated strategies that fuse their traditional information operations with cognitive warfare capabilities, all aimed at achieving strategic victories without direct conflict. Their integrated use of cyber tools, brain science, and algorithm-driven propaganda creates a toolkit designed to sow doubt, fracture cohesion within societies and alliances, and erode the U.S.’s strategic position. Meanwhile, Russia has a long history of using “active measures” and disinformation to disrupt democratic processes, refining its methods to incorporate the digital tools and tactics of modern cognitive warfare.
The tools and methods of cognitive warfare are not confined to the battlefield. Advances in neuroscience are informing applications that influence everything from military decision-making to purchasing decisions and public opinion. The digital ecosystem, once seen as a tool for democratization, has been co-opted to create polarization, mistrust, and social fragmentation. Studies now link social media use with heightened political polarization and anxiety, particularly among young adults who are often more hesitant to support traditional defense policies. Because many of these social-media platforms are controlled by foreign adversaries, the very populations democracies depend on for communication may be contributing to their own destabilization.
The Defense Department, NATO, and various allied nations acknowledge that cognitive warfare has profound implications for military operations and national security. Yet U.S. policy lacks a coherent approach to detecting, countering, and conducting cognitive operations. What’s needed is a structured framework that maps the cognitive domain and its dimensions. To borrow a concept from the behavioral sciences, the Pentagon needs a cognitive-warfare ontology.
Such an ontology would organize the who, what, where, and how of cognitive operations. It would tie together—and ultimately help harness—breakthroughs in neuroscience and synthetic biology, the exponential growth of dual-use technologies, and the influential role of algorithm-driven business and marketing techniques in shaping public behavior. Under this organizing schemes, Pentagon practitioners of cognitive warfare could design analytical tools to identify key actors, processes, spaces, and outcomes. Decision-makers can develop counterstrategies that neutralize threats and explore opportunities for strategic advantage. Such a framework must include both offensive and defensive operations, recognizing that the same scientific advancements used for defense can also be exploited for cognitive aggression.
The Pentagon should borrow its approach from that used in the behavioral sciences to develop the framework, led by the Defense Science Board or similar entity. Framework development begins with building “use cases,” or narrative scenarios that illustrate how individuals interact with a system to achieve objectives. Use cases are structured around five parameters: actors, context, resources, expected outcomes, and stakeholders. After building several use cases, we identify the tool dimensions to understand the interaction within the use cases. Our report outlines several, including tools exploiting cognitive biases and perceptions, tools involving neuroscience and biology, and tools employing techno-social applications. Ultimately, these use cases and tool dimensions serve as a foundation for constructing an ontology that systematically categorizes and organizes the diverse aspect of cognitive warfare. It also highlights the overlap between technological threats and cognitive threats.
This domain will require international cooperation. This new dimension is shaping the future character of war and how we understand the conflict spectrum. Our friends, partners, and allies are being affected no less than we are. States, nonstate actors, and the commercial sector are all engaged in a race of adaptation and innovation, developing and experimenting with new operational concepts. Our national security depends on working with nations who share our common values and support U.S. global leadership.
It will also require policymakers to grapple with the ethical implications of deploying cognitive strategies that influence behavior. How can the US protect the privacy and autonomy of individuals in an environment where cognitive manipulation is persistent? What are the legal boundaries of cognitive warfare, and how can international cooperation address this evolving problem? Furthermore, as cognitive threats become increasingly sophisticated, how can we fortify critical infrastructures against attacks that blend tangible and intangible elements in the cognitive space? Ultimately, how can the American polity ensure that its democratic system remains tenable?
Just as the U.S adapted to the arrive of nuclear weapons, so too must we reconsider our approach to national security in this new era. This means integrating expertise from psychology, neuroscience, data science, and ethics alongside traditional military and intelligence capabilities. It also means using insights from those not normally associated with defense, such as social media influencers, advertising agencies, fiction writers and entertainment producers, among others.
The stakes could not be higher. Failure to address the challenge of cognitive warfare risks leaving the U.S. vulnerable to strategies that bypass traditional defenses and strike at the heart of our social cohesion.
Dr. Jake Bebber is an officer in the U.S. Navy, and an Andrew W. Marshall Foundation Scholar, supported by the Hudson Institute. The views expressed here do not represent those of the U.S. government or any agency.
]]>
Read the full article here