Today we face a complex and evolving cognitive environment. Our adversaries are becoming more capable and remain committed to attacking, undermining, and ultimately supplanting American influence and leadership on the global stage.
The tools available to them—enabled by AI and other emerging technologies—add speed, access, and influence that were difficult to imagine in the past. In a recent discussion with Rand Waltzman—an IPA plank holder—he noted that it is now possible to influence individuals, groups, and societies at every level simultaneously. Add a chaotic and unreliable global information environment, and the result is an environment of real complexity.
That complexity shows up in our own language. The information and cognitive domain is crowded with terminology that reflects both the long history and the rapidly evolving state of the environment, and the many disciplines now engaged in it. In this space, words matter. Looking back may help us look forward more clearly.
The last strategic competition of this scale and consequence in this domain was the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. As many historians note, the Cold War was characterized by four ideas that help us understand that era: ideology, deterrence, containment, and competition. Many of today’s information and cognitive veterans cut their teeth on this historic competition. It may be fair to say that the Cold War was about “who leads and prevails.”
Today, I believe there are four interconnected concepts at the center of this complex space that help us understand this era. We can express them simply in four words: sovereignty, conflict, security, and advantage. It may be fair to say that the battle today is about “who decides.”
Let me explain.
I believe these four words form the core—or the center—of this complex space: what we seek to preserve, what threatens it, how we protect it, and what we seek to achieve.
Sovereignty depends on Decision Autonomy—it is what we seek to preserve and protect.
Decision Autonomy is our individual and collective ability to accurately see and understand the world around us, to trust the knowledge we have and the information we receive, and to make independent, confident decisions based on our own judgment. Decision autonomy is ultimately about sovereignty. For nations, sovereignty is the freedom to determine their own future without external influence or interference—self-determination. For individuals, decision autonomy is the expression of that same principle—personal sovereignty—the freedom to see reality clearly, exercise independent judgment, and make decisions that remain our own. Sovereignty gives us the right to decide. Decision autonomy gives us the ability to decide.
Conflict is Cognitive Conflict—it is the threat, the adversary and its actions, and the evolving threat environment in which conflict takes place.
Cognitive Warfare is one component of that conflict. Its primary objective is to undermine, degrade, and compromise Decision Autonomy using such pathways as deception, manipulation, coercion, cognitive overload, and other means. But the conflict extends beyond Cognitive Warfare; it intersects with and is strengthened by the gray zone and asymmetric warfare.
The gray zone is a space of ambiguity, plausible and implausible deniability, and persistent, incremental aggression where weaknesses and gaps are identified and exploited. It allows adversaries to conduct operations to advance their own national interests, attack and undermine their adversaries, and set the conditions for a future war without triggering a military response.
Some adversaries, such as Iran, employ asymmetric warfare above the threshold of armed conflict to exploit vulnerabilities, impose costs, create uncertainty, and shape the decisions of more powerful adversaries. In this complex conflict space, multiple forms of power, coercion, and manipulation increase cognitive effects.
Security is Cognitive Security—it is the safeguard.
At its core, the role of Cognitive Security is to preserve and protect cognition and Decision Autonomy. It is about resilience at every level—citizens, private sector and industry leaders, military commanders, and policymakers—and the preservation of domestic and allied cohesion. It is about the protection of human judgment, and the protection of systems that allow us to see, understand, and decide. No human capacity is more powerful—or more vulnerable—than our ability to make decisions. We should go to great lengths to protect it.
We know that defense—regardless of how good it is—isn’t enough. A second core role of Cognitive Security is to enable information and cognitive operations that advance Cognitive Advantage. That is the power of Cognitive Security.
Advantage is Cognitive Advantage—it is the strategic objective.
Cognitive Advantage means we are better able than our adversaries to understand the environment, make sound decisions, and shape the perceptions and decisions of others. It is a sustained capability to outcompete adversaries in ways that preserve U.S. freedom of action and advance U.S. national security. Cognitive Advantage means we retain global influence, credibility, and narrative power, and we expose and undermine adversary efforts at cognitive warfare. It reminds our adversaries that they and their audiences are vulnerable to cognitive operations and forces them—not us—to deal with the uncertainties of Cognitive Warfare. In very simple terms, it means we outthink, outpace, and outmaneuver our adversaries in the cognitive domain.
I believe these four concepts are inseparable. They form an interdependent quad of opposing and supporting forces. Conflict and adversary actions are persistent, sophisticated, and evolving. Cognitive Security must be as well. Determined Decision Autonomy itself is a counter to Cognitive Warfare and is essential, but our strategic objective is Cognitive Advantage.
You may use different terms. I offer this as a way to think about our mission space—not a glossary—and concepts we can argue and refine, test in our work, and improve together.