Old Dogs, New Tricks: Why Psychological Operations (PSYOP) Needs to Take Primacy Over Special Forces in Great Power Competition

**The views expressed in this article are my own and may not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Special Operations Command, United States Army Special Operations Command, Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.**

?

The global geopolitical landscape has witnessed a paradigm shift from warfare emblematic of the post-9/11 era, to a new frontier defined by information warfare, underpinning great power competition. China and Russia, as formidable adversaries in this arena, have strategically integrated information warfare within their military doctrines, thereby changing the rules of engagement. Against this backdrop, the United States stands at a pivotal juncture, necessitating a radical recalibration of its Army Special Operations Force structure, from a Special Forces-centric approach to a pronounced emphasis on Psychological Operations (PSYOP). This shift is not merely a tactical repositioning, but strategically supported by the US Code Title 10 Section 167j, which recognizes PSYOP as a special operations capability in its own right.

Historically, PSYOP in the U.S. military predates the establishment of Special Forces with the roots of modern day PSYOP founded in World War I. Additionally, the very schoolhouse where Green Berets and PSYOP soldiers are trained was originally the Psychological Warfare School established in 1950 at Fort Reiley Kansas then moved to Fort Bragg in 1952. As such, the institutional legacy of PSYOP reflects a rich heritage of psychological and special warfare expertise that predates the official creation of Green Berets. This historic precedence underscores the intrinsic value and the independent operational capability of PSYOP within the U.S. military structure and modern warfare itself.

As we venture into a future operating environment characterized by complex information warfare, the nature of warfare has not changed, but the character definitely has. The previous diminished role where PSYOP was poorly understood and perceived as an enabler to Special Forces (as unfortunately propagated by many in the ARSOF and greater SOF community over the years) is evolving into a strategic framework where Special Forces should now play a supporting role to PSYOP. China is taking such steps with their intelligentized warfare construct. This shift underscores the criticality of equipping and prioritizing PSYOP to navigate the intricacies of information warfare, thereby effectively countering the sophisticated information warfare strategies employed by adversaries in great power competition. The ensuing discourse delves into the rationale behind this strategic shift, advocating for a substantial investment in PSYOP in terms of funding and manpower, juxtaposed against the backdrop of evolving threats and the imperatives of modern and future warfare.

The Imperative of Information Warfare:

The essence of contemporary great power competition lies in the control of information for cognitive, perception, and behavior manipulation. The ability to shape perceptions, influence decisions, and control narratives is not merely a matter of countering adversarial propaganda, but a strategic endeavor to proactively dictate the terms of engagement in this global contest. China and Russia have adeptly integrated information warfare within their military doctrines. The finesse with which these nations employ a blend of cyber operations, disinformation campaigns, and legal and psychological warfare to undermine the U.S. and its allies often occurs without firing a single bullet. The modernization of PSYOP, would be a step towards regaining the advantage in this contested domain. However, this modernization necessitates a significant infusion of resources. The investment in technological infrastructure, advanced analytic capabilities, and specialized training for personnel is indispensable for operating effectively in the complex information environment. In a recent Business Insider article, the commander of United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) stated how critical PSYOP is to the modern battlefield. It is now time to back those statements with prioritizing PSYOP over other ARSOF formations.

?Comparative Analysis: Special Forces vs PSYOP:

The United States’ military strategy in the aftermath of 9/11 was chiefly characterized by a heavy reliance on Special Forces. Their expertise in counterterrorism and direct action proved indispensable in addressing the threats posed by non-state actors like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS. Special Forces were the tip of the spear in the global war on terror, adeptly navigating the complex battlefields of Afghanistan, Iraq, and other regions. Their capabilities were well-suited to the exigencies of the time, where the objective was the dismantlement and degradation of terrorist networks. This operational paradigm necessitated a significant allocation of resources to Special Forces, ensuring they were well-equipped and well-manned to execute their missions.

However, the geopolitical narrative has evolved significantly since then. The re-emergence of great power competition, marked by the strategic posturing of China and Russia, has brought to the fore a different kind of warfare - information warfare. Unlike the war on terror, where the primary battleground was physical even though there was a significant rise and development of terrorist propaganda, the primary arena of conflict in great power competition is the information environment. The objective is no longer merely the destruction of enemy combatants but the control of narratives, the influence of perceptions, and the manipulation of information to achieve strategic ends. Physical actions are many times developed and executed because of their psychological effect. This shift necessitates a re-evaluation of the traditional roles and resource allocation between Special Forces and PSYOP.

PSYOP, with its focus on influencing, disrupting, and countering adversarial information campaigns, emerges as a critical domain in this evolved battle space. The ability to influence the cognitive domain, shape behaviors, and guide decision-making processes among target audiences is paramount in a world where information is as potent a weapon as any piece of military hardware. The adversaries have recognized this potency, integrating sophisticated information warfare capabilities into their military doctrines. China’s Three Warfares Strategy is a stark representations of this integration. These doctrines aim to achieve strategic objectives not through the barrel of a gun, but through the manipulation of the information spectrum.

The modern threat landscape, therefore, demands a transition to a strategy that prioritized an information warfare capability with kinetics and other activities in support. While the Special Forces continue to play a vital role in various military engagements, the primacy they enjoyed in resource allocation post 9/11 needs a reevaluation. The emphasis should transition towards building a robust PSYOP capability that can navigate the murky waters of information warfare. The argument for prioritizing PSYOP over Special Forces in funding and manpower allocation is reinforced by the necessity to gain a first-mover advantage in the information domain, to pre-empt, counter, and discredit adversarial information campaigns before they can gain traction. The Chinese are even evolving their Three Warfares Strategy to informationized and then intelligentized warfare; something that is very telling in how they see the operational environment. Around 2015 with the creation of the Strategic Support Force (a new military service where the core of Chinese PSYOP resides), China elevated the importance of information warfare to the very core of its national military strategy.

Moreover, engagement in the information domain with enhanced PSYOP capabilities is not a standalone endeavor but should be seen as complementary to Special Forces. Looking at future conflicts through the lens of the strategic importance of information warfare, the future environment will be one where Special Forces are in support of PSYOP missions where cognitive and informational objectives are driving overall military operations. Special Forces could execute timed and synchronized Psychological Operations Actions (PSYACTS – actions or activities conducted primarily for their psychological impact); a concept previously codified in Special Operations Force (SOF) doctrine. The ability to engage effectively in both the physical and information domains will be crucial in countering the sophisticated information warfare strategies employed by adversaries like China and Russia.

The comparative analysis underscores a crucial imperative. In great power competition it may now be insufficient to say Special Forces are the special operations force of choice in the face of evolved threats characterized by advanced information warfare capabilities. A strategic rebalancing is necessary, where PSYOP is accorded a pronounced emphasis in terms of funding and manpower to enhance the U.S military’s ability to operate effectively in the complex, information-centric modern battle space. This rebalancing will equip the U.S. military with the requisite capabilities to confront and neutralize the multifaceted threats posed by the sophisticated information warfare strategies of its geopolitical adversaries.

Conclusion:

The United States stands at a strategic inflection point, where the imperatives of modern warfare demand a reconfiguration of military priorities. The argument for a substantial investment in PSYOP, both in terms of funding and manpower, is not a matter of choice but a strategic necessity. As the great power competition intensifies, the ability to control the narrative and influence the information environment will significantly dictate the trajectory of this global contest. The transition from the primacy of Special Forces to a pronounced emphasis on PSYOP is a pragmatic response to the evolving threats and a step towards ensuring a strategic advantage in the face of advanced information warfare strategies employed by formidable adversaries like China and Russia.

#SpecialOperations #PSYOP #NationalSecurity #SpecialForces #InformationWarfare #GreatPowerCompetition #innovation #military