The Evolution of Psychological Warfare: Reconceptualizing the Warfare to Operations Distinction in Military Doctrine
By Maurice "Duc" DuClos
Introduction
In the labyrinthine world of military doctrine, few transitions have been as misunderstood as the shift from Psychological Warfare (PSYWAR) to Psychological Operations (PSYOP). This semantic evolution, occurring primarily during the mid-20th century, represents far more than mere terminological housekeeping. It embodies a fundamental reconceptualization of how military institutions approach influence operations, reflecting deeper changes in political sensibilities, strategic thinking, and operational frameworks (Paddock, 1989). However, this evolution has inadvertently obscured crucial distinctions between psychological influence as a primary strategic effort versus a supporting capability—distinctions that carry significant implications for contemporary military operations.
The Narrative-Formula Paradigm: A Theoretical Framework
The evolution from PSYWAR to PSYOP must be examined through the lens of the Narrative-Formula paradigm, an analytical framework that distinguishes between institutional storytelling and operational methodology. This distinction proves crucial for understanding how military institutions both describe and execute their activities.
Military concepts inherently possess both narrative and formula components, each serving distinct purposes. The narrative component encompasses how an organization describes, justifies, and contextualizes its activities, serving essential functions in organizational identity, public relations, and institutional legitimacy. The formula component comprises the technical frameworks, methodological approaches, and operational procedures that guide actual execution (Lord & Barnett, 1989).
The conflation of these components creates several types of doctrinal confusion with significant operational implications:
https://www.strategycentral.io/post/the-evolution-of-psychological-warfare-reconceptualizing-the-warfare-to-operations-distinction-in-m
