New PRISM Issue Examines Irregular Warfare Across Cyber, Infrastructure and Information Domains

Homeland Security Today | Matt Seldon

The U.S. Department of War’s Irregular Warfare Center published Volume 12, Issue 1 of PRISM on September 14, 2026, framing irregular warfare as a primary arena of strategic competition across ten feature articles and two book reviews. The publication details how adversary states employ proxy networks, illicit finance, and grey-zone tactics to erode public trust without triggering conventional military conflict.

Steve S. Sin, Markus K. Binder, and Megan E. Rutter evaluate cognitive messaging models, while Mason M. Moore advocates establishing a dedicated U.S. Information Warfare Command. Further contributions map Russia’s layered proxy ecosystem, evaluate infrastructure pressure on Taiwan’s Kinmen islands, and assess private-sector cyber defense restrictions. Threat financing in Southeast Asia and drug cartels represent growing asymmetric challenges. Adversaries treat connected domestic civilian systems as unified operational terrain. Effective defense requires expanding coordination across government agencies, private infrastructure operators, and civil society to build systemic population resilience.

Comment

Establishing a unified U.S. Information Warfare Command exposes fundamental command and control friction between statutory military authorities and interagency strategic messaging. Operating in the cognitive domain requires synchronising military offensive cyber activities with diplomatic public diplomacy, an alignment that traditional joint command structures rarely accommodate. Without clear operational boundaries, authority disputes slow response times during rapid disinforming campaigns.

The bottleneck stems from the legal demarcation separating Title 10 military operations from Title 50 intelligence activities. Title 10 authorities restrict active military influence operations outside declared warzones, forcing offensive messaging protocols through multi-agency clearance loops. Consequently, operational approval timelines under current Joint Staff instructions consistently lag behind the execution cycles of Russian and Chinese cognitive operations.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If a dedicated U.S. Information Warfare Command is established, can structural reform resolve the statutory friction between Title 10 military authorities and Title 50 intelligence mandates during rapid cognitive campaigns?

The available evidence suggests that establishing a dedicated unified command addresses organizational focus but fails to eliminate statutory interagency boundaries. Statutory authority shifts require congressional legislative revision rather than internal Department of Defense restructuring. Consequently, execution speed will remain constrained by interagency clearance protocols regardless of command topology.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here