Lost in the Fog of War: Why We're Failing to Combat Cognitive Threats

Today, I am recommending a paper and an article. You can easily see a surface connection between the two. In hopes that you'd take the time to read them both, I'd like to highlight a few sentences/paragraphs from each, drawing attention to – our continued, years-long misalignment and failure to understand and combat the threat of cognitive warfare. Simply, we are fighting this new war the wrong way – or, some may argue, not fighting it at all.

Reading 1 – "China is waging cognitive warfare. Fighting back starts by defining it." Published on March 19, 2025, by Defense One, written by Dr. Jake Bebber.

Reading 2 - "PLA Views on the Information Domain," published in mid-January 2025 by the China Aerospace Studies Institute, written by Dr. Brendan S. Mulvaney.

Let's start with a sentence from Bebber about cognitive warfare:

"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."

I'd like to pull out of that sentence the following: cognitive warfare disrupts the way we think—rationality itself.

Next, here are a few passages from Mulvaney, with emphasis in bold from me.

"Although the US military and the PLA understand the importance of information to modern war, but (sic) the PLA views information differently from the US military. The PLA sees the "information domain" as a domain of war unto itself; equal to the physical domains of air, land, sea, and space. In fact, the CCP's PLA talks about conducting operations in those physical domains in order to support operations in the information domain. In military speak, the Information Domain would be the "supported" domain, that is to say, the focus of effort.

And now, Mulvaney diving into the cognitive aspects - emphasis in bold from me.

"For the PLA, the information domain not only includes actual information, and often military intelligence and analysis, but it also refers to the digital ones and zeros that make up the signals that travel across computer networks, plus the electromagnetic and cyber spectrum across which those signals travel, plus the cables and fibers that connect the network, plus the computers themselves that constitute the network, plus the end effect of those ones and zeros turned back into information and changing the minds of the people receiving and using that information, that is to say the "cognitive domain". The whole system is the information domain. As such it includes not only cyberspace, which the US sees as its own domain, but also the electro-magnetic spectrum, and hence Electronic Warfare (EW). This stands in contrast to how the US views EW. Crucially, for the PRC, the information domain also includes the end users of that information, that is to say, the humans in the loop, and the cognitive domain. 

What concerns me, when reading these two pieces, and quite a few other well-written articles on China's application of cognitive warfare, is that the US is getting its butt kicked in the cognitive domain simply because we are too divided on how to wage it effectively or have decided to spend years, yes years on trying to define a type of war that we don't even consider a domain.

Are we stuck in a  "Western-style" war mindset?

Again, cognitive warfare disrupts the way we think—rationality itself.

As we know and more of our leaders should openly admit, the CCP is engaged in total war, with cognitive warfare tools being effectively unleashed across the civilian population – for years now.

For this type of war, we must study, understand, and respond to the culture of total war – the type of war being waged against us.

An Eastern style of war versus a Western style.

Warfare, as usual...our type of war ain't gonna cut it anymore; closing ourselves off to the world and failing to rigorously study and understand the culture of the CCP, the PLA, and China as a whole will not help us.

In closing, from Bebber - "Just as the US adapted to the arrive (sic) 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."

These are both excellent pieces, and I applaud the authors and platforms for writing and publishing them. Both are worth your time to read in full.

Let's sort this out and get to work!