As previously mentioned, the brain is the battleground in the cognitive war, indicating that the human mind is the target of attacks aimed at degrading and destroying the enemy. This raises the debate, as its implementation could lead to restrictions for Western democracies.
Although this issue has been addressed since the 1990s when the brain became the focus of studies by global powers, the apparent difference lies in the approach taken by each side of the world.
It is no coincidence that Western culture is at risk and is a target to combat from the east, where countries such as China, Russia, and Iran operate—nations that do not comprehend the principles governing Western democracies where ethics is a fundamental value.
At Venezuela Política, we continue to delve into the topic of cognitive war based on the study conducted by military experts Luis Mariano Giorgi and Márcio Saldanha Walker.
More Than Gunfire and Bombing
It’s clear to everyone that war today involves more than just gunfire and bombing, but for the West, the cognitive war and its implementation would imply limits. Indeed, the cognitive war, its meanings and consequences, are perceived differently depending on the origin of the focus.
In short, there is no consensus on establishing the doctrine and boundaries of cognitive warfare, since, as previously pointed out, the meaning of concepts does not carry the same name according to each country’s doctrine and, therefore, it becomes challenging to identify it.
Western powers acknowledge the existence of cognitive warfare but still struggle to establish a consensus on its definition and procedures. This is simply because Western democracies face ethical restrictions and implementation challenges when addressing this issue.
Giorgi and Walker highlight that states with non-Western military doctrines—characterized by a more centralized system of checks and balances—have benefitted in their conceptual approach to this topic due to their urgent need for additional tools that enhance their conventional military capabilities. In other words, they have no limitations in their application.
Moreover, cognitive warfare is evolving, driven by advancements in neuroscience, which provide dual-use tools.
The actor—be it a state or a non-state group—that successfully implements a coherent doctrine and concept in cognitive warfare would gain a significant, indeed decisive, advantage.
Executive Functions
Let us take a moment to explain Executive Functions (EF) and their importance in cognitive warfare, based on what Luis Mariano Giorgi and Márcio Saldanha Walker estimate in their study.
These executive functions are developed in the frontal lobes of the brain, identified as the “seat of intentionality, foresight, and planning.” EF is defined as “the mental capabilities needed for setting goals, planning how to achieve them, and executing those plans efficiently” and as “the set of skills necessary for achieving a goal.”
Therefore, the executive functions of soldiers are crucial for their military performance. Thus, the potential manipulation of EF constitutes a new domain of warfare.
The components of EF include processing speed, alternating attention, working memory, access to semantic memory, dual execution, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, planning, branching—cognitive capability, a learning technique, or a developmental strategy—multitasking, and decision-making.
Emotions, values, cognitive shortcuts, and biases in sensory perception influence decisions in cognitive warfare. In simple terms, we’re discussing the manipulation of consciousness, which raises the ethical limitations the West faces when approaching cognitive warfare.
Ethical Challenges of Cognitive Warfare
Cognitive warfare, as it poses fundamental ethical challenges
Therefore, the development and application of cognitive warfare cannot be treated lightly, as it raises fundamental ethical challenges related to the manipulation of the mind, individual and collective autonomy, as well as the potential social destabilization it entails.
From a legal standpoint, the absence of a clear doctrine, possible legal gaps, and difficulties in establishing causality would be significant obstacles to applying existing legal frameworks. It is crucial, therefore, to address these ethical and legal implications as the field of cognitive warfare evolves.
The attack and exploitation of the reality that an individual or group constructs implies the manipulation of both individual and collective autonomy and, thus, raises ethical questions regarding the declared goal of cognitive warfare to degrade or even destroy the way one thinks conceptually.
The manipulation of the brain’s executive functions (EF) through interventions in brain processes essential for decision-making and social behavior also poses ethical dilemmas regarding the integrity and capability of individuals, especially in a military context.
Equally questionable is the manipulation of factors that influence sensory perception, such as emotions, values, biases, and stereotypes, aimed at impacting decisions.
Defining cognitive warfare as the “militarization of public opinion” to influence politics and destabilize institutions underscores the ethical concerns regarding the manipulation of democratic processes and the erosion of public trust.
On the other hand, research in military brain science seeks to “damage the brain” and “interfere with brain function causing brain dysfunction and loss of control.”
The goal of cognitive warfare to destabilize societies by accelerating preexisting divisions or introducing new ideas to pit different groups against each other, thus increasing polarization, is an issue that raises serious ethical concerns.