Cognitive warfare: Some sceptical observations from general strategic theory and affective science

Abstract The article probes the analytical utility of the increasingly popular concept of ‘cognitive warfare’. It proceeds by reflecting writings associated with the concept’s mainstream meaning against selected insights from general strategic theory and affective science and finds cognitive warfare problematic in multiple aspects. From the perspective of general strategic theory, cognitive warfare misrepresents the nature of the challenge at hand, blurs the distinction between core aspects of strategic effort, and draws on questionable rather than sound strategic thought. From an affective science perspective, it relies on an increasingly outdated paradigm for explaining the human mind, provides little insight into how cognition shapes behaviour, and overlooks the beneficial roles of emotions in maintaining social cohesion. Integrating these perspectives, the article argues that information aggression is better understood as attempted subversion centred on specific emotions. The presented argument allows practitioners to better understand the nature of the challenges they face and to develop appropriate remedies, and academics to study the subject in a more focused manner.