Philosophy at War: Wittgenstein and Irregular Warfare

Introduction

On September 28^th, 2026, Dr. Darrell Dooyema, Ph.D. published a perspective piece in Frontiers in Communications titled “A war of words: Wittgenstein, language games, and the loss of trust in the 21st century”. With so much material on cognitive warfare in the national security discourse, it helps to step back and examine how we talk about trust. The lessons of irregular warfare have established that the modern practitioner must be familiar with anthropology, sociology, and psychology. This multidisciplinary approach should also incorporate Eastern and Western philosophical traditions, both historical and contemporary. Wittgenstein is of particular importance for several reasons. First, he was a practitioner of war and philosophy, with his only major work (published during his lifetime) written in the trenches of WW1 while he served in the Austrian Army. Second, much of his work concerns deciphering how language is used to describe truth. Third, his posthumously published works introduced the concept of “language-games,” in which language functions as a theoretical game where norms and rules determine meaning.

A War of Words

Dr. Dooyema advances three points of contention in his article, “Philosophy matters! A single sentence can change the world.” The linguistic turn in philosophy has constrained philosophy, and while language-game theory is useful, it can also be weaponized. He calls on the primacy of philosophy, noting that in most fields the terminal degree is still a “Doctor of Philosophy” (PhD). He then continues to discuss Wittgenstein’s influence on contemporary philosophy, citing how it has shaped the discipline. He concludes by demonstrating how this philosophy can be weaponized and establishing how we can “rebuild trust”. Dr. Dooyema’s concern about the fragmentation or manipulation of shared meaning presents a philosophical, political, and strategic problem.

The Ongoing Discussion   

Words mean things. This phrase is probably familiar to many and is a common military aphorism. It also dominates the discourse on irregular warfare. Dr. Frank Hoffman, who is well known in this discussion,  discussed definitions in his article “Assessing Cognitive Warfare.” CW5 (USA Retired) Chad Machiela has argued that “Whole-of-Government Irregular Warfare Requires a Common Language” and, when he said, “Words, whether spoken or written, are icons that represent ideas,” he echoed Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. Furthermore, tnhe impact of weaponized language is nothing new to the Small Wars Journal; Irina Tsukerman, J.D. in her article titled “How America’s Adversaries Learned to Weaponize Reality,” demonstrated how our adversaries are already weaponizing language to sow distrust in what is reality. Wittgenstein is also not unheard of in irregular warfare either; Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Robert Schmidle used his concepts of hinges in his piece Positioning Theory and Terrorist Networks.

Conclusion

Just as Clausewitz was influenced by the philosophers Kant and the broader German intellectual tradition, so are we influenced by Wittgenstein. His argument that language acquires meaning through use in human systems is instrumental in shaping how to discuss legitimacy, trust, and collective action, with the key distinction that understanding a word’s definition does not necessarily determine what it means to the people using it. Unfortunately, this rich philosophical tradition is often relegated to humanities departments with little engagement from outside disciplines. Returning to another familiar military aphorism, it would behoove practitioners of irregular warfare to engage directly with this scholarship to understand its implications for the science of warfare. Words mean things… we need to find out what they mean to the people using them.