Al.Qaeda.net

Original filename

Ethical Psychological Warfare Guide(5).md

Repository role

verbatim Markdown research source supplied by the repository operator

SHA-256

25db154c76ff0b79dcf481736fd1300fa22442d1f610230ad3349dd21929f8aa

Preferred viewer

ethics-workbench

# **The Ethical Architecture of Psychological Warfare and Cognitive Operations**

## **Introduction to the Information Environment and the Expansion of the Battlespace**

The landscape of modern geopolitical competition and armed conflict has irrevocably expanded beyond the traditional physical dimensions of land, sea, air, and space. In the twenty-first century, the human mind has explicitly become a primary operational domain, necessitating a rigorous and unprecedented examination of the ethical parameters governing psychological warfare. The capacity of a state or military organization to systematically influence the emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, and civilian individuals presents a profound moral paradox. On one hand, non-kinetic influence operations offer the strategic potential to achieve military and political objectives while actively minimizing physical destruction and the loss of human life. In this light, successful psychological operations fulfill the highest moral imperatives of proportionality and harm reduction. On the other hand, the deliberate manipulation of human cognition, the deployment of deceptive narratives, and the overt weaponization of information raise severe ethical concerns regarding the preservation of individual autonomy, the sanctity of truth, and the structural integrity of civilian immunity during conflicts.

As the international system moves deeper into an era of intense strategic competition, technological advancements have radically altered the mechanisms of persuasion. Innovations in generative artificial intelligence, algorithmic distribution, and synthetic media have drastically lowered the barriers to entry for mass-scale cognitive manipulation. The resulting environment is one where reality itself is often contested, and the foundational epistemic infrastructure of societies is under constant siege. Consequently, the necessity for a definitive, exhaustive ethical guide to psychological operations has never been more paramount.

This analysis provides a comprehensive examination of the doctrinal, philosophical, and legal frameworks that currently govern, and must continue to govern, ethical psychological warfare. By synthesizing the historical evolution of military influence doctrine, the ancient strictures of the Just War tradition, the binding legal architecture of International Humanitarian Law, and the emerging, highly complex principles of cognitive warfare, this report establishes a complete ethical architecture. This architecture is designed to navigate the immense complexities of operations in the information environment, ensuring that the pursuit of strategic advantage does not necessitate the abandonment of fundamental human rights and democratic values.

## **Doctrinal and Organizational Evolution: The Weaponization of Information**

To properly understand the ethical frameworks governing psychological warfare, it is essential to trace the historical, organizational, and doctrinal evolution of the discipline. The language utilized by military institutions to describe influence operations, and the bureaucratic structures created to execute them, directly reflect underlying shifts in strategic intent, legal interpretation, and political sensitivity across different eras of conflict.

The institutional lineage of modern psychological operations in the United States can be traced back to the Office of War Information established during World War II, and later, the Office of the Chief of Psychological Warfare established in 1951\.1 During the Vietnam War, the discipline operated under the complex and often controversial structure of the Joint United States Public Affairs Office, an experience that subsequently drove the United States Information Agency to aggressively distance itself from military propaganda in favor of objective information dissemination.2 Following the drawdown of U.S. forces from Vietnam in the 1970s, the psychological operations apparatus fell into severe disrepair.3 Major units, including the 2nd and 7th Psychological Operations Groups, were deactivated or transferred to the reserve component, reflecting a broader institutional aversion to the discipline.3

It was not until the lead-up to the 1991 Persian Gulf War that the infrastructure was revitalized, spearheaded by the 4th Psychological Operations Group and the 8th Psychological Operations Battalion.3 This revitalization proved strategically decisive, yet the terminology surrounding the discipline remained fraught with political risk. By 2010, the Department of Defense determined that the term "Psychological Operations" carried a persistent, menacing stigma.5 In an attempt to provide a more sanitized, accurate description of the relevant operational activities—and to disassociate the military's non-kinetic functions from negative connotations of malicious mind control—the Department directed a comprehensive transition to the term "Military Information Support Operations," commonly abbreviated as MISO.5

This semantic transition, however, was met with profound institutional resistance. It was perceived by many practitioners and commanders as a bureaucratic euphemism imposed from above, one that diluted the operational reality of the discipline and failed to adequately communicate the military necessity of influence to the broader force.5 Consequently, in late 2017, certain specialized components, notably the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, reverted to utilizing the PSYOP designation, creating a fractured doctrinal lexicon.5 This period of organizational friction culminated in a definitive policy reversal on December 2, 2025\. The Secretary of War issued a memorandum officially mandating the return to the term "Psychological Operations" across the entire department, superseding the MISO terminology.6 The memorandum explicitly argued that with fifteen years of perspective, the term PSYOP more accurately aligned operational functions with branding, eliminated confusion, and directly supported departmental priorities to "reestablish deterrence and revive the warrior ethos".6

Beyond semantic debates, the structural health of the psychological operations workforce presents an ethical imperative of its own. A 2024 evaluation conducted by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General identified severe, systemic challenges within the psychological operations career field.7 The report revealed that the military faces critical structural and capacity challenges in the recruitment, training, and retention of these specialized professionals, noting that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness had failed to comprehensively analyze or monitor the growth of this workforce in over twenty years.7 From an ethical standpoint, the failure to maintain a adequately trained, culturally attuned, and structurally supported psychological operations force dramatically increases the risk of operational malpractice. Ethical influence operations require profound expertise in human behavior, target language proficiency, and legal constraints; a degraded workforce is fundamentally less capable of navigating the moral nuances of the information environment.7

Concurrently with these developments, the broader military apparatus has aggressively adopted the concept of Operations in the Information Environment (OIE). OIE represents a doctrinal expansion, recognizing that information is not merely a specialized function but is inherent to all warfighting domains.9 In August 2023, the U.S. Navy formalized this evolution by establishing a dedicated OIE division, defining the discipline as the ability to create cognitive effects to achieve deterrent and warfighting advantages by shaping adversary attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors through integrated influence activities.11 The ultimate realization of this doctrinal trajectory is the formal emergence of "Cognitive Warfare." The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act mandated that the Department of War define cognitive warfare and clearly distinguish it from traditional influence operations.12 While traditional psychological operations seek to change what specific target audiences think, cognitive warfare represents a deeper structural threat: it seeks to permanently alter how individuals and populations process information, actively targeting the autonomous meaning-making mechanisms of the human brain.13

| Doctrinal Terminology | Definition and Strategic Context | Ethical and Operational Implications |
| :---- | :---- | :---- |
| **Psychological Operations (PSYOP)** | Planned operations conveying selected information to influence foreign emotions, motives, and reasoning.6 Reinstated department-wide in 2025\.6 | Acknowledges the inherently adversarial and psychological nature of influence. Requires strict oversight to prevent ethical breaches regarding civilian manipulation. |
| **Military Information Support Operations (MISO)** | Utilized from 2010 to 2025 to describe PSYOP activities, intended to sanitize the function and remove menacing public connotations.5 | Reflected an institutional desire to align influence with diplomatic and supportive narratives, minimizing the perception of psychological aggression. |
| **Operations in the Information Environment (OIE)** | The integrated employment of multiple information forces to affect drivers of behavior, moving beyond isolated specialized units.9 | Broadens ethical responsibility to all commanders and forces operating within the information space, necessitating widespread ethical training. |
| **Cognitive Warfare** | The systemic weaponization of cognition to reshape meaning-making processes, targeting trust, autonomy, and perception.12 | Raises the most severe ethical concerns regarding the total erosion of human autonomy, epistemic security, and psychological health.13 |

## **The Just War Tradition: Theological Origins and Modern Translation**

The rigorous ethical evaluation of modern psychological operations is inextricably linked to the Just War tradition. This foundational framework of international political and theological ethics traces its origins through the Pax Romana and the legal theories of the statesman Cicero, finding its most robust early articulation in the theological treatises of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.14 Aquinas, in his seminal *Summa Theologiae*, systematized the doctrine by establishing that a morally permissible war requires legitimate authority, a just cause, and a right intention aimed at advancing good or avoiding evil, rather than seeking vengeance.15 Over centuries, this tradition has evolved into two primary, interdependent components: *jus ad bellum*, which dictates the moral justifications for initiating armed conflict, and *jus in bello*, which provides the ethical guidelines for combatant conduct within the conflict itself.16 Applying these physical, kinetic frameworks to the non-kinetic, deeply psychological domain requires a profound conceptual translation.

### ***Jus ad Bellum*****: Last Resort, Proportionality, and the Non-Kinetic Alternative**

Under the strictures of *jus ad bellum*, the principles of legitimate authority, just cause, right intention, reasonable hope of success, macro-proportionality, and last resort govern the ethical initiation of hostilities.15 Information warfare and psychological operations uniquely interact with the principle of "last resort." Traditional ethical interpretations dictate that all peaceful alternatives—including diplomacy, economic sanctions, and strategic negotiations—must be entirely exhausted before a sovereign state may ethically resort to lethal physical violence.15 In this specific context, psychological warfare serves as an absolutely critical intermediary step. By deploying aggressive influence operations to deter an adversary's aggression, undermine their military morale, or compel their surrender prior to an invasion, a state fulfills its ethical obligation to vigorously pursue non-kinetic means before initiating physical bloodshed.15

Furthermore, psychological operations inherently align with the *jus ad bellum* requirement of proportionality, which mandates that the overall destruction and suffering caused by a war must not outweigh the strategic good achieved by fighting it.17 Because psychological warfare theoretically produces no direct physical casualties, structural devastation, or environmental ruin, it is frequently viewed by ethicists as a highly proportional and morally preferred instrument of statecraft.15 However, as these operations scale into the globally connected digital environment, the calculation of proportionality becomes exceedingly complex. Ethical practitioners must carefully war-game and anticipate the second- and third-order effects of their campaigns. A psychological operation that successfully destabilizes an adversary's military command structure might also trigger unintended, catastrophic societal panic, mass displacement, or complete economic collapse.15 Therefore, ensuring that the psychological damage inflicted remains strictly proportional to the strategic good achieved is a continuous ethical burden.15

### ***Jus in Bello*****: Discrimination, Non-Combatant Immunity, and Double Effect**

The ethical complexities of psychological warfare become most pronounced within the realm of *jus in bello*, which demands strict, unwavering adherence to the principles of discrimination—distinguishing absolutely between lawful combatants and protected non-combatants—and micro-proportionality within tactical engagements.21 The principle of non-combatant immunity asserts that civilian populations must never be the deliberate targets of military force, coercion, or violence.23

When applying the concept of non-combatant immunity to psychological operations, ethicists and military planners encounter a critical, often unresolved dilemma. Military doctrine frequently and explicitly identifies foreign civilian populations as primary target audiences for influence operations. These campaigns are intended to build support for friendly strategic objectives, counter adversary propaganda, or actively incite the local population to oppose and oust an enemy government.25 While traditional, permissive military doctrine does not classify non-lethal, informational persuasion as a violation of non-combatant immunity, stricter philosophical interpretations equate certain forms of deception directly with physical coercion.24 Ethicists such as Sissela Bok compellingly argue that deception intrinsically impairs a civilian's ability to perceive reality, effectively forcing a decision upon them by corrupting their fundamental cognitive data.24 From this perspective, utilizing a civilian populace as a conduit for military deception—manipulating their beliefs to achieve a tactical advantage over an enemy force—explicitly treats those civilians as assets of traditional military value, representing a clear, undeniable violation of non-combatant immunity.24

When military commanders attempt to justify the deception of civilians on utilitarian grounds—arguing, for example, that a deceptive narrative will ultimately save thousands of lives by ending a conflict swiftly—they must grapple with the theological and philosophical doctrine of double effect.15 The doctrine of double effect posits that there is a morally relevant difference between the "intended" consequences of an act and the "unintended" but foreseen consequences.15 However, intentionally deceiving a civilian population cannot be justified under double effect if the deception itself is the primary mechanism utilized to achieve the good end; the immoral act of lying cannot be the direct cause of the moral victory.15 To remain ethically sound under *jus in bello*, psychological operations must demonstrate "right intention." Campaigns must be waged exclusively to advance the common good, mitigate physical conflict, or defend against unjustified aggression.15

Moreover, ethical information strategy demands a deep, respectful "cultural attunement".15 Operations must align with the cultural values, shared identities, and local mythologies of the target audience. Ethnocentric messaging that ignores local context or violates the dignity of the population invariably alienates audiences and constitutes a moral failure.15 The fundamental right to truthful information, as articulated in theological texts such as the Catholic Catechism, asserts that society's right to information is firmly founded upon the principles of truth, freedom, and justice.15 Psychological operations that systematically deploy falsehoods against civilian populations inherently violate this fundamental human right, regardless of the operational utility.15

## **The Legal Architecture: International Humanitarian Law and Information Operations**

While the Just War tradition provides the philosophical underpinning for ethical conflict, International Humanitarian Law (IHL)—primarily encompassing the comprehensive frameworks of the Hague and Geneva Conventions—provides the binding, codified legal architecture that translates these moral principles into actionable rules of engagement.16 IHL fundamentally treats the existence of an armed conflict as a reality and seeks to carefully balance the harsh requirements of military necessity against the unyielding imperatives of human dignity.26 Although IHL was historically drafted to regulate kinetic violence, its provisions apply with equal legal force to the planning and execution of operations in the modern information environment.29

### **The Threshold of Attack and the Recognition of Mental Harm**

A central, ongoing debate in the application of IHL to psychological and cyber warfare is determining precisely when an information operation meets the legal threshold of an "attack." Under Article 49 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, an attack is strictly defined as an "act of violence against the adversary".30 To apply this to non-kinetic operations, legal scholars and military manuals generally utilize an effects-based approach: if a psychological, digital, or cyber operation can be reasonably expected to result in physical injury, death, or the physical destruction of objects, it unequivocally qualifies as an attack.30 Consequently, it becomes subject to the strict IHL rules governing the conduct of hostilities, including the principles of distinction, proportionality, and the requirement to take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm.30

Crucially, modern interpretations of IHL increasingly recognize that the definition of "injury" extends far beyond visible physical wounds. The International Committee of the Red Cross and leading legal scholars assert that if an information operation intentionally or incidentally induces severe mental suffering, trauma, or serious psychological illness—such as severe post-traumatic stress, clinical depression, or psychosis—it may be legally classified as causing injury.30 IHL treaties inherently protect mental health; for instance, the requirement to protect the "wounded and sick" encompasses those requiring medical care due to profound psychological trauma, extending strengthened legal protections to these individuals.32 Furthermore, physical brain injuries caused by blasts, which result in severe cognitive and psychological symptoms, are undeniably recognized as incidental injuries within proportionality calculations.33 However, establishing a definitive, evidentiary causal nexus between the dissemination of a deceptive digital narrative and a specific psychiatric injury in a civilian population remains a monumental legal challenge, creating vast, unresolved grey zones in the regulation of cognitive operations.31

### **Explicit Prohibitions and Protections in the Information Space**

Despite the complexities surrounding the definition of an attack, IHL establishes explicit, non-negotiable red lines that absolutely prohibit specific types of information operations, prioritizing the protection of life and human dignity above all military utility.25

Firstly, it is a fundamental violation of IHL to utilize psychological operations to encourage, order, or incite combatants, civilians, or proxy groups to commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, or acts of genocide.25 This strict prohibition encompasses the dissemination of narratives that systematically dehumanize an adversary or a specific civilian demographic to lower the psychological barrier to mass violence.30 Furthermore, using digital platforms or messaging applications to encourage direct violence against protected civilians, civilian infrastructure, or wounded and detained enemy soldiers is explicitly unlawful.25

Secondly, IHL strictly prohibits operations designed with the primary purpose of spreading terror among the civilian population.25 While conventional, lawful bombardment may inevitably and incidentally cause profound fear among nearby populations, deliberately hacking into civilian communication networks to broadcast false air raid sirens, solely to keep inhabitants in a state of paralyzing terror or to cause unlawful mass displacement, is a direct violation of international law.25 Additionally, it is absolutely prohibited for belligerents to utilize information operations to declare that "no quarter" will be given—meaning that no enemy surrender will be accepted and all opposing forces will be annihilated.25 Threatening captured or wounded soldiers with torture, rape, or execution through psychological messaging is similarly prohibited.25

Thirdly, information operations must never amount to inhumane treatment or outrages upon personal dignity.30 This principle is particularly critical regarding the treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs) and civilian internees. Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention explicitly and unconditionally protects POWs from "insults and public curiosity".25 In the context of modern digital warfare, this translates to a strict, unambiguous prohibition on publishing identifying information, photographs, videos, recordings of private conversations, or coercive interrogations of captured personnel.25 Exposing prisoners to global digital audiences for propaganda purposes violates their inherent dignity and exposes them and their families to demonization and potential harm.25

Finally, it is fundamentally unlawful to conduct information operations that undermine, target, or harm medical and humanitarian personnel.25 Spreading deliberate disinformation regarding the location, nature, or neutrality of humanitarian organizations in order to disrupt their access to vulnerable populations, erode local trust, or incite violence against aid workers is a severe violation of the obligation to respect and protect impartial relief operations.25

### **The Ethical Demarcation: Ruses of War vs. Perfidy**

The distinction between a lawful, expected military deception and an unlawful, treacherous betrayal of trust is arguably the most critical ethical and legal line drawn by IHL in the context of psychological and tactical operations.

**Ruses of War** are explicitly permitted under customary IHL and are codified in Article 37 of Additional Protocol I.30 These encompass acts intended to confuse or mislead the adversary, or to induce them to act recklessly, provided such acts do not infringe upon other rules of international law.30 Lawful ruses include the use of visual camouflage, the deployment of decoys, the transmission of false communication signals, the execution of mock operations or feints, and the dissemination of tactical misinformation explicitly designed to undermine an adversary's military discipline, misdirect their reconnaissance assets, or weaken their will to resist.25

**Perfidy**, conversely, is strictly prohibited and constitutes a grave war crime if it results in the killing, injuring, or capturing of an adversary.30 Additional Protocol I defines perfidy as acts that invite the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of IHL, with the specific intent to betray that confidence.30 The essence of perfidy is the malicious abuse of good faith. Examples include feigning a desire to surrender under a flag of truce in order to draw enemy forces into an ambush, feigning incapacitation by wounds or sickness to launch a surprise attack, or feigning protected civilian, medical, or neutral status.30 The absolute prohibition on perfidy is vital because it preserves the minimal "good faith" between belligerents that is absolutely necessary to allow for safe surrender, the treatment of the wounded, and the eventual restoration of peace; without this trust, warfare descends into an inescapable cycle of limitless savagery.38

It is important to note the nuances of protected status within IHL, particularly concerning the concept of the *Levée en Masse*. Recognized since the 19th century and codified in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention, a *Levée en Masse* occurs when the inhabitants of a non-occupied territory spontaneously take up arms on the approach of the enemy to resist invading forces, without having had time to form regular armed units.41 If these civilians carry arms openly and respect the laws of war, they are entitled to combatant status and POW protections.41 As demonstrated during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, civilians participating in a genuine *Levée en Masse* are acting lawfully; their participation does not constitute perfidy, provided they do not simultaneously attempt to feign non-combatant status while engaging in hostilities.41

| Legal and Ethical Category | Definition and Operational Mechanism | Ethical and Legal Status under IHL |
| :---- | :---- | :---- |
| **Ruses of War** | Misleading the adversary through decoys, false signals, mock operations, or tactical misinformation.30 | **Permissible.** Universally recognized as a legitimate, necessary aspect of military strategy and statecraft.30 |
| **Perfidy** | Feigning protected status (e.g., surrender, medical personnel, civilian) to betray confidence and launch an attack.36 | **Prohibited.** Constitutes a war crime if it leads to death/injury. Destroys the "good faith" essential for peace.30 |
| **Political Propaganda** | Disseminating information to influence civilian populations to oppose an enemy government or ideology.25 | **Permissible.** A standard tool of psychological operations that is generally unrestricted by IHL frameworks.25 |
| **Terrorizing Civilians** | Generating false alarms or threatening violence primarily to induce panic, terror, and mass displacement.25 | **Prohibited.** Violates core civilian protections against intentional psychological and physical harm.25 |
| **Exposing POWs** | Publishing identifying data, interrogations, or humiliating media of captured personnel for propaganda.25 | **Prohibited.** Violates the Third Geneva Convention regarding strict protection from public curiosity and humiliation.25 |

## **The Philosophy and Ethics of Military Deception**

Beyond the strict, codified legal categorizations of International Humanitarian Law, the active practice of military deception requires a much deeper philosophical justification. Throughout the extensive history of Western ethical and philosophical thought, outside the specific context of warfare, a nearly absolute moral presumption has existed against deception.42 The philosopher Immanuel Kant famously and uncompromisingly argued that lying is always a morally blameworthy act, regardless of the circumstances or potential benefits, because it inherently harms humanity by vitiating the "source of right" and destroying the mutual trust and confidence upon which all human society and contractual duties rely.40

However, leading military ethicists, such as Major John Mark Mattox, argue compellingly that military deception is fundamentally and categorically distinct from civilian lying, and is morally permissible when conducted strictly within the institutionalized parameters of warfare.24 Mattox entirely rejects the cynical "military realist" view—which posits that "all is fair in war" and morality is irrelevant—arguing that such an amoral stance is unacceptable and contradicts international treaties and military value systems.40 Instead, Mattox posits that warfare operates under a unique, universally understood set of social conventions and shared expectations.40 When two nations or entities engage in the horrific extremity of armed conflict, there is a mutual, tacit, and absolute understanding that each side will actively attempt to achieve tactical and strategic surprise.40 Therefore, utilizing camouflage, transmitting false radio traffic, or executing complex operational feints does not constitute a moral breach of faith, because the adversary is not reasonably or legally entitled to the truth regarding operational intentions or force dispositions.40

The military execution of this philosophy is encapsulated in the doctrinal "See, Think, Do" methodology of military deception.15 Planners meticulously analyze what the deception target (the adversary decision-maker) currently sees, what they will think based on those observations, and what specific action or inaction they will subsequently take that benefits friendly forces.15 Deceptive messages are funneled through "conduits"—intelligence gathering systems or specific sensors—with the expectation that the manipulated data will reach the target.15

The absolute critical caveat to this philosophical defense of military deception is the unwavering requirement of "good faith".40 Deception remains ethically permissible only so long as no explicitly made promises are broken and no implicitly understood humanitarian obligations are discarded.40 This is the philosophical root of the legal prohibition on perfidy: to feign surrender is to shatter the implicit promise of the white flag, thereby destroying the fragile mechanism by which human beings can safely lay down their arms and cease killing.40 Mattox concludes that military deception is not merely acceptable, but is ethically preferable and highly moral if it successfully reduces overall bloodshed, ameliorates suffering, and decisively hastens the restoration of a just and lasting peace.40

However, this ethical justification for deceiving combatants does not seamlessly or ethically extend to civilian populations. The profound dilemma arises when military planners utilize civilian channels or target civilian minds as the conduits for deceptive narratives intended to reach an adversary commander.24 A rigorous ethical analysis dictates that if an operational mission can be achieved by deceiving the enemy military infrastructure without simultaneously corrupting the informational reality of the civilian populace, the ethical imperative is absolute: the civilian population must be spared the deception.24 When military commanders attempt to justify widespread civilian deception on utilitarian grounds, they risk causing long-term, catastrophic harm to the general degradation of trust in institutions, media, and government—a cost that often far outweighs the immediate tactical benefit.24

## **Taxonomies of Propaganda and Historical Case Studies in Ethical Persuasion**

The ethical implementation of psychological operations relies heavily on the careful categorization of information based on its source attribution and its objective veracity. United States military doctrine traditionally divides propaganda and influence materials into three distinct, operational categories: White, Gray, and Black.44 The ethical permissibility, strategic utility, and risk profile of these categories vary significantly.

**White Propaganda** represents a form of influence that is overtly disseminated and accurately acknowledged by its true, originating source, such as the United States Government or a specific, named military command.44 Because it relies entirely on institutional credibility to persuade, white propaganda generally utilizes truthful, verifiable information. It is considered the most ethically defensible form of psychological warfare, actively aligning with the fundamental human right to truthful information and demonstrating respect for the cognitive autonomy of the target audience.15

**Gray Propaganda** exists in an operational middle ground; the true source of the information is deliberately concealed, obscured, or left ambiguous to the imagination of the target audience.44 The content itself may be entirely true, partially true, or highly misleading. Ethically, gray propaganda is deeply complex; while it does not actively forge a false identity like black propaganda, it relies on a deliberate lack of transparency to influence audiences who might otherwise reject the message outright if the true national or military origin were known.44

**Black Propaganda** involves material that is explicitly and deliberately attributed to a false source, purporting to emanate from an entity entirely other than the actual originator.44 Black propaganda is inherently and profoundly deceptive. It is utilized to sow immense confusion, incite violent internal division, or falsely implicate an adversary in atrocities. Due to the extraordinarily high risk of strategic blowback, the erosion of international credibility, and the profound ethical complications of systemic forgery, the use of black propaganda is heavily restricted in Western militaries. It generally operates under the strict purview of covert intelligence authorities and national command rather than standard, overt military operational commanders.2

### **Historical Efficacy of Ethical Persuasion**

History provides incredibly compelling case studies of psychological operations operating within the highest ethical standards—utilizing truthful, White propaganda—to achieve strategic outcomes that directly preserved massive amounts of human life.

During the Korean War, psychological operations were heavily utilized to foster anti-communist sentiment and align the shared national identity of the Korean people with the United Nations Command.1 Operations such as Plan Patriot and Plan Deadlock, executed by the 1st Radio Broadcasting and Leaflet Group, explicitly leveraged cultural attunement.15 They utilized the powerful symbolism of the traditional Taikuk flag, contrasting it against the red flag of communism, and employed deeply emotional, maternal imagery to describe the struggle for Korean sovereignty.15 By appealing to a unified ethnic identity and accusing communist leadership of sacrificing Korean lives for foreign Soviet and Chinese interests, these operations successfully resonated with the target audience without relying on base falsehoods.15

Similarly, during World War II, the Allied forces executed massive, truthful psychological campaigns designed to encourage the surrender of Axis troops. The Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force personally authorized the dropping of millions of "Safe Conduct" passes over German lines.47 These critical documents, printed clearly in German and English, served as formal, authoritative guarantees that any surrendering soldier would be immediately disarmed, medically treated, fed, and safely removed from the danger zone in strict, unwavering accordance with the Geneva Conventions.47 Over 65 million copies of a single leaflet variant (ZG61) were dropped, successfully leveraging the absolute truth of Allied humanitarian compliance to systematically erode enemy resistance.47 In the Pacific theater, leaflets were also utilized to explicitly warn Japanese civilians of imminent aerial bombardments, demonstrating a profound ethical attempt to separate non-combatants from the targeted military infrastructure—a clear, practical application of the IHL principle of discrimination.48

This highly ethical, truthful paradigm was replicated with devastating effectiveness during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Prior to and during the ground phase of Operation Desert Storm, coalition aircraft dispersed over 29 million leaflets (totaling approximately 29 tons) and broadcast continuous, reliable instructions on the "Voice of the Gulf" radio network, which operated 19 hours a day.50 The psychological operations campaign explicitly and truthfully instructed Iraqi soldiers on exactly how to safely abandon their vehicles, approach coalition forces, and surrender without being fired upon.50 The information provided was verifiably true, and the promises of humane treatment were strictly honored by advancing forces.52 The strategic result was profound and historic: an estimated 70 percent of the more than 80,000 Iraqi soldiers who surrendered cited the coalition leaflets and radio broadcasts as a primary, deciding factor in their choice to cease resistance, drastically reducing casualties on both sides and rapidly accelerating the successful end of the conflict.50

## **The Technological Frontier: Generative AI, Synthetic Media, and Cognitive Warfare**

While historical psychological operations relied on physical leaflet drops, analog radio broadcasts, and localized loudspeaker teams, the contemporary and future information environment is entirely defined by instantaneous algorithmic distribution and advanced artificial intelligence. The rapid integration of Generative AI (GenAI) into global influence operations has precipitated a severe crisis in the ethical regulation of psychological warfare, transforming the battlefield from physical geography directly into the epistemic and cognitive infrastructure of human society.13

### **The Threat of Generative AI and the Erosion of Moral Agency**

Generative AI fundamentally alters the nature of information operations because it does not merely analyze existing data; it autonomously generates entirely original, synthetic image, audio, and video content.31 This technology drastically lowers the technical, financial, and temporal barriers to producing hyper-realistic synthetic media, commonly known as "deepfakes".31 The unprecedented capacity to generate forged realities at massive scale allows state and non-state actors to execute sophisticated cognitive operations with speed and reach that outpace traditional defense mechanisms.31

From an ethical perspective, the military weaponization of GenAI presents severe, systemic risks. The creation of deepfakes to simulate a foreign political leader issuing a false declaration of war, or to fabricate high-fidelity video evidence of atrocities that never occurred, crosses all traditional ethical boundaries of acceptable military deception.53 While commentators have hypothesized that the U.S. military could theoretically utilize deepfakes to undermine the credibility of a terrorist leader by simulating immoral behavior, the long-term ethical consequences of such actions are deeply corrosive.55 The proliferation of indistinguishable synthetic media actively undermines the concept of objective reality, fostering a deeply dangerous "post-truth" environment where populations, unable to verify their own eyes and ears, default to universal cynicism and distrust of all institutional authority.13

Furthermore, leading academic research highlights the profound psychological impact of AI on the operators themselves. The integration of AI-enabled targeting and influence systems facilitates the "objectification of human targets," increasing the operator's psychological distance from the consequences of their actions and leading to a heightened tolerance for collateral damage and civilian harm.56 This technological mediation induces "automation bias," systematically weakening the moral agency and ethical decision-making capacity of the military personnel responsible for deploying these systems.56

### **The Foundational Principles of Cognitive Warfare**

The evolution from traditional persuasion to AI-driven cognitive warfare is articulated through a series of foundational principles that expose the profound vulnerability of the human mind to systematic, algorithmic exploitation.13 This is not merely a theoretical concept; peer competitors are actively operationalizing it. For instance, Beijing’s aggressive "Three Warfares" doctrine explicitly integrates psychological warfare, media warfare, and legal warfare to systematically reshape the international information environment, targeting diaspora communities and Western institutions to paralyze decision-making.57

The foundational principles of cognitive warfare reveal its insidious nature:

1. **Cognition as a Weaponizable Surface:** The human mind is not a neutral receiver of facts; it is a processing architecture subject to deception, emotional triggering, and sensory flooding.13 Ethical defense requires the implementation of "mental rate limiters" to decelerate the speed of human processing from initial stimulus to reaction.13  
2. **The Battlefield is Meaning, Not Data:** In cognitive warfare, data itself is inert. The true target is the meaning-making process. Attackers weaponize meaning by polluting the interpretive field with competing truths and affect-rich narratives, forcing audiences into tribal reflexes.13  
3. **Trust as the Strategic Center of Gravity:** The objective of advanced cognitive warfare is rarely to convince a population of a specific lie; rather, it is to systematically fracture the trust networks—institutions, journalism, and peer channels—through which objective truth flows.13 Once foundational trust collapses, truth becomes entirely irrelevant to the population.  
4. **The Erosion of Autonomy:** The ultimate ethical casualty of cognitive warfare is human agency. By flooding mental bandwidth and installing interpretive defaults, attackers actively corrode the target's capacity for independent, reasoned thought.13  
5. **Simulated Coherence and Epistemic Infrastructure:** The human mind naturally seeks patterns and coherence over objective truth. Cognitive warfare leverages narratives that "simulate coherence" to provide false closure to highly complex events.13 Attackers achieve this by poisoning the "epistemic infrastructure"—the search algorithms, cultural norms, and datasets governing knowledge validation—so that human targets organically, yet inevitably, arrive at a pre-designed, distorted conclusion.13 To survive this environment, defenders must practice "epistemic fluidity," the ability to adapt interpretations without suffering total mental collapse.13

## **Pre-Bunking: The Ethical Countermeasure to Cognitive Warfare**

As the offensive capabilities of cognitive warfare expand exponentially, ethical military and intelligence practitioners must develop robust defenses that absolutely do not rely on reciprocal deception. Traditional counter-disinformation efforts, which primarily rely on debunking falsehoods and fact-checking after the deceptive narrative has already circulated, are notoriously ineffective due to the psychological phenomenon of belief perseverance.58

A highly effective, scientifically validated, and ethically flawless alternative is the strategy of "pre-bunking," also known as psychological inoculation.58 Rooted deeply in decades of behavioral science and social psychology, pre-bunking involves preemptively warning a target audience about an impending, specific disinformation narrative and clearly explaining the precise manipulative techniques the adversary will attempt to use.58

This strategy was deployed with unprecedented, historic success by Western intelligence agencies in the immediate lead-up to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.60 Rather than hoarding highly classified intelligence regarding Russian operational intentions, allied governments took the extraordinary step of systematically declassifying and publicly disclosing Russian plans to stage elaborate "false flag" attacks, which were intended to serve as a fabricated *casus belli* for the invasion.58 By accurately forecasting the adversary's deception to the global public, the pre-bunking strategy utterly neutralized the cognitive and political impact of the falsehoods before they could be fully launched.60 Ethically, pre-bunking is the gold standard for modern information operations: it relies entirely on objective truth and transparency, profoundly respects and fortifies the cognitive autonomy of the audience, and strengthens the global epistemic environment rather than participating in its pollution.

## **Professional Ethics, Oversight, and the Evaluation Framework**

The execution of ethical psychological warfare is not merely a matter of institutional policy; it is fundamentally dependent upon the individual morality, professional ethics, and rigorous oversight of the practitioners themselves. The integration of behavioral science into military operations requires psychological operations personnel to adhere to strict ethical codes.

Psychologists supporting military operations are bound by the American Psychological Association's ethical principles, which mandate that practitioners must strive to benefit those they serve and take immense care to avoid harm.62 The ethical framework for a psychological operations professional requires a synthesis of "Principle ethics"—understanding the legal and moral obligations of *what to do*—and "Virtue ethics"—cultivating the internal character of *who to be*.62 An ethical practitioner must possess high emotional intelligence, profound self-awareness, and a deep respect for the community mores of the target audience.62 Furthermore, practitioners are ethically obligated to refrain from operations if they know their personal problems, biases, or cognitive impairments will prevent them from performing their duties competently and objectively.62 To ensure this level of professionalism, rigorous institutional oversight is required, including adherence to strict Post-Government Employment (PGE) restrictions and procurement integrity laws to prevent conflicts of interest when transitioning to private sector defense contracting.66 For research and operations involving human subjects or the collection of sensitive human data, mandatory ethical review processes, such as those utilizing the HRP-420 checklist for Department of Defense supported research, must be strictly enforced, providing mechanisms for appeal up to the Secretary of Defense.67

### **The RAND Framework for Ethical Influence Operations**

To operationalize these philosophical, legal, and professional principles, military organizations require highly structured methodologies for evaluating the ethical permissibility of proposed influence operations. The RAND Corporation has developed a robust, principles-based framework designed specifically to guide defense information professionals through this incredibly complex moral terrain.69

The RAND framework explicitly recognizes the American cultural distaste for manipulation and addresses the historical, dangerous gap wherein the ethics of influence were frequently conflated merely with legal compliance by lawyers.70 It mandates that true ethical evaluation must be decoupled from purely legal review, requiring practitioners to actively interrogate the profound morality of the specific communication target, the content, and the methodology utilized.70 The evaluation process unfolds across three distinct, mandatory phases:

**Phase 1: Initial Screening** The initial screening serves as a rapid gateway to determine if a proposed influence operation requires extensive, formal ethical dissection. Planners must assess the core proposal against three foundational pillars 69:

* **Necessity:** Is the operation genuinely indispensable for achieving the stated military objective, or are there non-deceptive, less intrusive alternatives readily available?  
* **Effectiveness:** Is there concrete empirical or doctrinal evidence suggesting the operation will actually achieve its intended cognitive effect?  
* **Proportionality:** Is the degree of psychological manipulation or potential indirect harm strictly proportional to the strategic value of the military outcome?

**Phase 2: Full Ethical Risk Assessment** If an operation advances past the initial screening, it undergoes a rigorous, exhaustive risk assessment against five specific ethical criteria 69:

| Evaluation Criteria | Ethical Inquiry and Operational Application |
| :---- | :---- |
| **Legitimacy of Outcomes** | Does the operation seek a valid, lawful military objective recognized under *jus ad bellum* and national policy, rather than political retribution, personal vengeance, or unauthorized disruption? 69 |
| **Necessity of Means** | Is the specific, proposed influence activity strictly required to attain the outcome? If the desired outcome can be fully achieved without utilizing deception, the deceptive element must be immediately stripped from the plan.69 |
| **Harm Mitigation** | Do the proposed methods actively avoid causing unjustifiable mental or physical harm? Do planners ensure that any unavoidable harm falls strictly upon those legally liable to harm (combatants) while rigorously preserving non-combatant immunity? 69 |
| **Probability of Success** | Does the operation possess a high, evidence-based likelihood of success? Ethically, it is absolutely impermissible to risk the massive degradation of institutional credibility and civilian trust on highly speculative, unproven psychological gambits.69 |
| **Control of Second-Order Effects** | Have planners adequately mapped the complex information environment to ensure the operation will not generate devastating unintended consequences, such as inciting uncontrollable mass violence or triggering economic collapse far beyond the intended scope? 69 |

The RAND framework explicitly acknowledges that the chaotic realities of total war may occasionally necessitate operations that cannot wholly satisfy every single criterion.69 In such extreme, highly restricted cases, an operation may still be morally justified if the expected humanitarian or strategic benefit overwhelmingly and undeniably outweighs the projected harm, invoking the strictest interpretations of the ethical calculus of the doctrine of double effect.69

**Phase 3: The Justification Statement** The final phase requires the drafting of a formal, written justification statement.69 This is not merely a bureaucratic checkbox; it is the definitive articulation of the "ethical logic" underpinning the entire operation.69 The justification statement forces practitioners to rigorously translate abstract moral reasoning into concrete, defensible operational language. It provides commanding officers, legal reviewers, and civilian leadership with a highly transparent, coherent, and non-arbitrary rationale, enabling them to evaluate the immense ethical weight of the proposal and either authorize or reject it with absolute moral clarity.69

### **The Theory of Victory in Information Operations**

Complementing the rigid RAND framework is the necessary implementation of a specialized "theory of victory" specific to the subjective information domain.15 Traditional, kinetic military operations measure success through highly objective, easily quantifiable metrics: territory captured, enemy equipment physically destroyed, or hostile units neutralized. Information operations, dealing entirely with the invisible, subjective complexities of human cognition and belief, rarely offer such clean, indisputable data points.15

An ethical theory of victory accepts the subjective, often unquantifiable messiness of the information environment.15 It acknowledges that "winning" in psychological warfare is often a highly subjective assessment based upon the evolving perceptions of political elites, allied partner nations, and the global public opinion.15 To maintain strict democratic oversight and continually secure the legal authorities necessary for conducting long-term, ethical influence campaigns, practitioners must generate continuous "incremental dividends"—tangible, intermediate, and highly visible successes that definitively demonstrate both operational efficacy and ethical compliance to skeptical civilian leadership.15 The swift declassification and brilliant pre-bunking of adversarial deception prior to the Ukraine conflict serves as a prime, historic example of an incremental dividend that massively builds institutional trust while strictly adhering to the highest ethical standards of democratic statecraft.15

## **Conclusion**

The architecture of ethical psychological warfare is not a static, historical relic; it is a dynamic framework that requires continuous, rigorous recalibration in response to relentless technological innovation and rapidly evolving strategic paradigms. As military definitions constantly shift—from traditional Psychological Operations to the sanitized Military Information Support Operations, and now accelerating toward the profound, existential complexities of AI-driven Cognitive Warfare—the underlying moral imperatives must remain fiercely anchored in the ancient wisdom of the Just War tradition and the binding legal structures of International Humanitarian Law.

To operate ethically within the modern information environment is to constantly, precariously balance the undeniable military necessity of strategic influence against the fundamental, unalienable human rights of objective truth, personal dignity, and absolute cognitive autonomy. While lawful ruses of war and highly targeted, truthful psychological operations offer vital, moral mechanisms to significantly reduce kinetic bloodshed and hasten the cessation of hostilities, they must never be allowed to devolve into unlawful perfidy, the spread of civilian terror, or the systemic, cynical erosion of non-combatant immunity.

The advent of Generative AI, synthetic media, and algorithmic meaning-making has radically expanded the global battlespace into the very epistemic infrastructure of human society itself. Defending democratic institutions against these unprecedented capabilities requires strategies deeply rooted in transparency, objective truth, and cognitive empowerment, such as proactive pre-bunking, rather than a descent into reciprocal deception and the dark arts of black propaganda. By rigorously and uncompromisingly applying evaluation frameworks that prioritize military necessity, strict proportionality, and the absolute mitigation of secondary psychological harm, professional military practitioners can wield the formidable instruments of psychological warfare not as tools of boundless, amoral manipulation, but as highly disciplined, ethically constrained assets in the relentless pursuit of a just and lasting global peace.

#### **Works cited**

1. Cooking up Psychological Operations the ingredients of successful PSYOP \- Calhoun, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://calhoun.nps.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/abf6252c-ec6c-4eb7-b81b-ae21015ceffb/content](https://calhoun.nps.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/abf6252c-ec6c-4eb7-b81b-ae21015ceffb/content)  
2. Psychological Operations: The Ethical Dimension, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://ia801805.us.archive.org/25/items/aquino-michael-psychological-operations-the-ethical-dimension\_202012/Aquino%20Michael%20-%20Psychological%20operations%20The%20ethical%20dimension.pdf](https://ia801805.us.archive.org/25/items/aquino-michael-psychological-operations-the-ethical-dimension_202012/Aquino%20Michael%20-%20Psychological%20operations%20The%20ethical%20dimension.pdf)  
3. Rising from the Ashes: Psychological Operations (PSYOP) in Operation DESERT SHIELD, Part 1 \- ARSOF History, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://arsof-history.org/articles/21oct\_psyop\_in\_operation\_ds\_pt1\_page\_1.html](https://arsof-history.org/articles/21oct_psyop_in_operation_ds_pt1_page_1.html)  
4. JP 3-13.2, Military Information Support Operations \- Public Intelligence, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://info.publicintelligence.net/JCS-MISO.pdf](https://info.publicintelligence.net/JCS-MISO.pdf)  
5. What's in a Name? Psychological Operations versus Military Information Support Operations and an Analysis of Organizational Change, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2018-OLE/Mar/PSYOP/](https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2018-OLE/Mar/PSYOP/)  
6. Changing the Term Military Information Support Operations Back to Psychological Operations \- Department of War, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://media.defense.gov/2025/Dec/08/2003839440/-1/-1/0/CHANGING-THE-TERM-MILITARY-INFORMATION-SUPPORT-OPERATIONS-BACK-TO-PSYCHOLOGICAL-OPERATIONS.PDF](https://media.defense.gov/2025/Dec/08/2003839440/-1/-1/0/CHANGING-THE-TERM-MILITARY-INFORMATION-SUPPORT-OPERATIONS-BACK-TO-PSYCHOLOGICAL-OPERATIONS.PDF)  
7. Press Release: Evaluation of the DoD's Military Information Support Operations Workforce (Report No. DODIG-2024-068), accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.dodig.mil/In-the-Spotlight/Article/3719783/press-release-evaluation-of-the-dods-military-information-support-operations-wo/](https://www.dodig.mil/In-the-Spotlight/Article/3719783/press-release-evaluation-of-the-dods-military-information-support-operations-wo/)  
8. DA PAM 600-3: Psychological Operations (PO) Branch \- U.S. Army, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2024/11/19/78647da6/po-da-pam-600-3-dtd-19-nov-24.pdf](https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2024/11/19/78647da6/po-da-pam-600-3-dtd-19-nov-24.pdf)  
9. US Military Doctrine Treats Information and Influence as the Same Thing—and That's a Problem \- Modern War Institute, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://mwi.westpoint.edu/us-military-doctrine-treats-information-and-influence-as-the-same-thing-and-thats-a-problem/](https://mwi.westpoint.edu/us-military-doctrine-treats-information-and-influence-as-the-same-thing-and-thats-a-problem/)  
10. AFDP 3-13, Information in Air Force Operations, 01 May 2026, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP\_3-13/3-13-AFDP-INFO-OPS.pdf](https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_3-13/3-13-AFDP-INFO-OPS.pdf)  
11. CHIPS Articles: U.S. Navy Operations in the Information Environment (OIE) defined, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.doncio.navy.mil/Chips/ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=18073](https://www.doncio.navy.mil/Chips/ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=18073)  
12. Defining Cognitive Warfare: A NDAA Mandate Response \- Small Wars Journal, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/05/05/defining-cognitive-warfare/](https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/05/05/defining-cognitive-warfare/)  
13. Cognitive Warfare Principles \- European Nexus for Strategic ..., accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.intelligencestrategy.org/blog-posts/cognitive-warfare-principles](https://www.intelligencestrategy.org/blog-posts/cognitive-warfare-principles)  
14. The Just War Tradition and Theory in Context | Latest News, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://ondisc.nd.edu/news-media/news/the-just-war-tradition-and-theory-in-context-2/](https://ondisc.nd.edu/news-media/news/the-just-war-tradition-and-theory-in-context-2/)  
15. The Ethical Imperative of Information: Just War Considerations for ..., accessed May 15, 2026, [https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/10/15/the-ethical-imperative-of-information-just-war-considerations-for-global-information-strategy/](https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/10/15/the-ethical-imperative-of-information-just-war-considerations-for-global-information-strategy/)  
16. Just War Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://iep.utm.edu/justwar/](https://iep.utm.edu/justwar/)  
17. Just war | Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://carnegiecouncil.org/explore-engage/key-terms/just-war](https://carnegiecouncil.org/explore-engage/key-terms/just-war)  
18. Just war theory \- Wikipedia, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just\_war\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory)  
19. Just War Theory and the Last of Last Resort | Ethics & International Affairs, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/journal/just-war-theory-and-the-last-of-last-resort](https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/journal/just-war-theory-and-the-last-of-last-resort)  
20. The Ethics of Information Warfare – An Overview \- Mariarosaria Taddeo, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://rosariataddeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/volume-introduction.pdf](https://rosariataddeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/volume-introduction.pdf)  
21. War \- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/)  
22. Just War Theory and International Humanitarian Law \- Veterans Breakfast Club, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://veteransbreakfastclub.org/just-war-theory-and-international-humanitarian-law/](https://veteransbreakfastclub.org/just-war-theory-and-international-humanitarian-law/)  
23. Jus in Bello | Beyond Intractability, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/jus\_in\_bello](https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/jus_in_bello)  
24. ARMY OF LIES: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF DECEIVING CIVILIANS IN WAR \- Calhoun, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://calhoun.nps.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/f9568e2a-3581-4357-a5ba-ec7d01457f25/content](https://calhoun.nps.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/f9568e2a-3581-4357-a5ba-ec7d01457f25/content)  
25. IHL and Information Operations during Armed Conflict \- Lieber ..., accessed May 15, 2026, [https://lieber.westpoint.edu/ihl-and-information-operations-during-armed-conflict/](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/ihl-and-information-operations-during-armed-conflict/)  
26. What is International Humanitarian Law? \- ICRC, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document/file\_list/what-is-ihl-factsheet.pdf](https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document/file_list/what-is-ihl-factsheet.pdf)  
27. Overview of international humanitarian law \- GSDRC, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://gsdrc.org/topic-guides/international-legal-frameworks-for-humanitarian-action/concepts/overview-of-international-humanitarian-law/](https://gsdrc.org/topic-guides/international-legal-frameworks-for-humanitarian-action/concepts/overview-of-international-humanitarian-law/)  
28. EASY GUIDE TO INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW \- Diakonia, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://admin.diakonia.se/app/uploads/sites/2/2021/06/Easy-Guide-to-IHL.pdf](https://admin.diakonia.se/app/uploads/sites/2/2021/06/Easy-Guide-to-IHL.pdf)  
29. The Legal Boundaries of (Digital) Information or Psychological Operations Under International Humanitarian Law, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol100/iss1/16/](https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol100/iss1/16/)  
30. The Legal Boundaries of (Digital) Information or Psychological ..., accessed May 15, 2026, [https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3054\&context=ils](https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3054&context=ils)  
31. Cognitive Warfare: Generative AI, False Realities, and International ..., accessed May 15, 2026, [https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1156\&context=research](https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1156&context=research)  
32. Six ways IHL protects mental health, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2025/10/16/six-ways-ihl-protects-mental-health/](https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2025/10/16/six-ways-ihl-protects-mental-health/)  
33. Invisible Injuries: Concussive Effects and International Humanitarian Law | Harvard National Security Journal, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://journals.law.harvard.edu/nsj/wp-content/uploads/sites/82/2018/01/2\_SchmittHighfill\_Invisible-Injuries-1.pdf](https://journals.law.harvard.edu/nsj/wp-content/uploads/sites/82/2018/01/2_SchmittHighfill_Invisible-Injuries-1.pdf)  
34. Concretizing Mental Harm: Warfare's Psychological Impact on Civilians and the Return to Domestic Law for Establishing a Standards-Setting Paradigm, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://tlcp.law.uiowa.edu/sites/tlcp.law.uiowa.edu/files/2024-08/8.\_solomon\_-\_conretizing\_mental\_harm\_final.pdf](https://tlcp.law.uiowa.edu/sites/tlcp.law.uiowa.edu/files/2024-08/8._solomon_-_conretizing_mental_harm_final.pdf)  
35. The Protection of Mental Health under International Humanitarian Law \- IRIS, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.iris.sssup.it/retrieve/7d217d5f-88e9-4841-b922-ed3c03181a0d/Bosi\_The%20Protection%20of%20Mental%20Health%20under%20International%20Humanitarian%20Law.pdf](https://www.iris.sssup.it/retrieve/7d217d5f-88e9-4841-b922-ed3c03181a0d/Bosi_The%20Protection%20of%20Mental%20Health%20under%20International%20Humanitarian%20Law.pdf)  
36. international humanitarian law \- answers to your questions \- IIHL, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.onlinelibrary.iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IHL-Q-A.pdf](https://www.onlinelibrary.iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IHL-Q-A.pdf)  
37. Ruses of War \- International Humanitarian Law Databases \- ICRC, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/es/customary-ihl/v2/rule57](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/es/customary-ihl/v2/rule57)  
38. Customary IHL \- Rule 65\. Perfidy \- International Humanitarian Law Databases, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65)  
39. Counter-Terrorism Module 6 Key Issues: IHL, Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism \- Unodc, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-6/key-issues/ihl-terrorism-and-counter-terrorism.html](https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-6/key-issues/ihl-terrorism-and-counter-terrorism.html)  
40. The Moral Status of Military Deception, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE00/Mattox00.html](https://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE00/Mattox00.html)  
41. Conceptualizing IHL: Levée en Masse & Perfidy \- Public International Law & Policy Group, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org/lawyering-justice-blog/2023/6/9/conceptualizing-ihl-leve-en-masse-amp-perfidy](https://www.publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org/lawyering-justice-blog/2023/6/9/conceptualizing-ihl-leve-en-masse-amp-perfidy)  
42. The Ethics of Military Deception \- DTIC, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA350010](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA350010)  
43. The Ethics of Military Deception \- DTIC, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA350010.pdf](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA350010.pdf)  
44. FM 33-1 Psychological Operations U.S. Army Doctrine \- June 1968 \- PsyWar.Org, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.psywar.org/psywar/reproductions/FM\_33\_1\_1968.pdf](https://www.psywar.org/psywar/reproductions/FM_33_1_1968.pdf)  
45. Psychological Operations: Principles and Case Studies \- GovInfo, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D301-PURL-LPS46803/pdf/GOVPUB-D301-PURL-LPS46803.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D301-PURL-LPS46803/pdf/GOVPUB-D301-PURL-LPS46803.pdf)  
46. POAS Preparation Handbook \- Special Operations Recruiting \- U.S. ..., accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.goarmysof.army.mil/Portals/100/Documents/Psychological%20Operations%20Preparation%20Handbook%202025\_Final.pdf?ver=7CW6k4B9wFBS1Dypbfq-hg%3D%3D](https://www.goarmysof.army.mil/Portals/100/Documents/Psychological%20Operations%20Preparation%20Handbook%202025_Final.pdf?ver=7CW6k4B9wFBS1Dypbfq-hg%3D%3D)  
47. Our Favorite Leaflets \- Psywarrior, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.psywarrior.com/OurFavoriteLeaflets.html](https://www.psywarrior.com/OurFavoriteLeaflets.html)  
48. Psychological Warfare Branch Scrapbook of American Propaganda Leaflets, 1944-1945, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:80444/xv30865](https://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:80444/xv30865)  
49. Airborne leaflet propaganda \- Wikipedia, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne\_leaflet\_propaganda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_leaflet_propaganda)  
50. Leaflets of the Persian Gulf War \- PsyWar.Org, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.psywar.org/psywar/reproductions/LeafletsPersianGulfWar.pdf](https://www.psywar.org/psywar/reproductions/LeafletsPersianGulfWar.pdf)  
51. USAF Psychological Operations, 1990-2003 \- Air Force Historical Research Agency, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.dafhistory.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/AFD-070912-044.pdf](https://www.dafhistory.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/AFD-070912-044.pdf)  
52. United States, Surrendering in the Persian Gulf War \- How does law protect in war? \- ICRC, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/united-states-surrendering-persian-gulf-war](https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/united-states-surrendering-persian-gulf-war)  
53. Exploring Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Cyber and Information Operations Integration, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/March-April-2025/AI-Cyber-Information-Operations-Integration/](https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/March-April-2025/AI-Cyber-Information-Operations-Integration/)  
54. The fundamental rights risks of countering cognitive warfare with artificial intelligence \- PMC, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12500826/](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12500826/)  
55. Deepfakes and Deception: A Framework for the Ethical and Legal Use of Machine-Manipulated Media \- Modern War Institute, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://mwi.westpoint.edu/deepfakes-and-deception-a-framework-for-the-ethical-and-legal-use-of-machine-manipulated-media/](https://mwi.westpoint.edu/deepfakes-and-deception-a-framework-for-the-ethical-and-legal-use-of-machine-manipulated-media/)  
56. The ethical implications of AI in warfare \- Queen Mary University of London, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.qmul.ac.uk/research/featured-research/the-ethical-implications-of-ai-in-warfare/](https://www.qmul.ac.uk/research/featured-research/the-ethical-implications-of-ai-in-warfare/)  
57. Cognitive Warfare Is Exploiting Polarization, Both in Nations and Companies, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/articles/2026/04/cognitive-warfare/](https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/articles/2026/04/cognitive-warfare/)  
58. The role of psychological warfare in the battle for Ukraine, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/06/news-psychological-warfare](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/06/news-psychological-warfare)  
59. Disinformation as a weapon of war: the case for prebunking \- Friends of Europe, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.friendsofeurope.org/insights/disinformation-as-a-weapon-of-war-the-case-for-prebunking/](https://www.friendsofeurope.org/insights/disinformation-as-a-weapon-of-war-the-case-for-prebunking/)  
60. The war for Ukraine: reputational security and media disruption \- PMC, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9579663/](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9579663/)  
61. Ukrainian Resistance to Russian Disinformation: Lessons for Future Conflict \- RAND, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research\_reports/RRA2700/RRA2771-1/RAND\_RRA2771-1.pdf](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2700/RRA2771-1/RAND_RRA2771-1.pdf)  
62. Ethical Considerations for Working with Military Members and Veterans Objectives \- Center for Deployment Psychology |, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://deploymentpsych.org/system/files/member\_resource/1-Ethics%20update.pdf](https://deploymentpsych.org/system/files/member_resource/1-Ethics%20update.pdf)  
63. Ethics Reading List | The Society for Military Psychology, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.militarypsych.org/ethics-reading-list/](https://www.militarypsych.org/ethics-reading-list/)  
64. APA GUIDELINES \- for Psychological Practice With Military Service Members, Veterans, and Their Families, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-military-service-members-veterans-families.pdf](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-military-service-members-veterans-families.pdf)  
65. Ethical Considerations for Working with Military Service Personnel (Chapter 1\) \- The Cambridge Handbook of Applied Psychological Ethics, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-applied-psychological-ethics/ethical-considerations-for-working-with-military-service-personnel/6F84EA769B0D471B40E900EAED1DEEC2](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-applied-psychological-ethics/ethical-considerations-for-working-with-military-service-personnel/6F84EA769B0D471B40E900EAED1DEEC2)  
66. Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office \> ETHICS TOPICS \> Post Government Employment and Procurement Integrity, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil/ETHICS-TOPICS/Post-Government-Employment-and-Procurement-Integrity/](https://dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil/ETHICS-TOPICS/Post-Government-Employment-and-Procurement-Integrity/)  
67. hrp-420-checklist-department-of-defense-supported-research.docx, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://hsro.uresearch.miami.edu/\_assets/pdf/hrp-420-checklist-department-of-defense-supported-research.docx](https://hsro.uresearch.miami.edu/_assets/pdf/hrp-420-checklist-department-of-defense-supported-research.docx)  
68. WRAIR Policy \#24 Submission of Protocols Involving Human Subjects, Human Information or Biospecimens, for Scientific and Ethical Review, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://wrair.health.mil/Portals/87/WRAIR%20Policy%20%2324%20Submission%20of%20Protocols%20Involving%20Human%20Subject%2C%20Human%20Information%20or%20Biospecimens%20for%20Scientific%20and%20Ethical%20Review.pdf](https://wrair.health.mil/Portals/87/WRAIR%20Policy%20%2324%20Submission%20of%20Protocols%20Involving%20Human%20Subject%2C%20Human%20Information%20or%20Biospecimens%20for%20Scientific%20and%20Ethical%20Review.pdf)  
69. Planning Ethical Influence Operations: A Framework for Defense ..., accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.rand.org/pubs/research\_reports/RRA1969-1.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1969-1.html)  
70. Planning Ethical Influence Operations: A Framework for Defense Information Professionals \- RAND, accessed May 15, 2026, [https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research\_reports/RRA1900/RRA1969-1/RAND\_RRA1969-1.pdf](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA1900/RRA1969-1/RAND_RRA1969-1.pdf)