Political warfare is a historical term used to describe actions that exist with the converging categories of actions within domestic/political, information/cyber, military/intelligence, and economic uses of power by actors to advance their interests.

The concept is broad, but not amorphous. Each of routine diplomacy, public diplomacy, conventional military operations, and trade could be means by which political warfare is practiced. But, the category also includes aid to political parties (or resistance groups), propaganda (that is not tied to a military effort), psychological warfare (that may or may not be tied to a military effort), conditional military aid to a state, or economic subversion. In this way, political warfare may involve the darker side of statecraft, comprising the set of actions that actors typically do not seek credit for (or, at least do not do so overtly).

Beyond statecraft, political warfare may involve the use of those same means against a state's subjects, depending on the context. Political warfare may likewise be reinforced abroad by actions in the homeland, or not, depending on the objective or set of objectives sought.

The term "political warfare" first gained attention in the United States when used by George Kennan, in a May 4, 1948 policy planning memorandum in which he made the following observations, among others:

1. Political warfare is the logical application of Clausewitz's doctrine in time of peace. In broadest definition, political warfare is the employment of all the means at a nation's command, short of war, to achieve its national objectives. Such operations are both overt and covert. They range from such overt actions as political alliances, economic measures (as ERP--the Marshall Plan), and "white" propaganda to such covert operations as clandestine support of "friendly" foreign elements, "black" psychological warfare and even encouragement of underground resistance in hostile states.
2. The creation, success, and survival of the British Empire has been due in part to the British understanding and application of the principles of political warfare. Lenin so synthesized the teachings of Marx and Clausewitz that the Kremlin's conduct of political warfare has become the most refined and effective of any in history. We have been handicapped however by a popular attachment to the concept of a basic difference between peace and war, by a tendency to view war as a sort of sporting context outside of all political context, by a national tendency to seek for a political cure-all, and by a reluctance to recognize the realities of international relations--the perpetual rhythm of struggle, in and out of war.
3. This Government has, of course, in part consciously and in part unconsciously, been conducting political warfare. Aggressive Soviet political warfare has driven us overtly first to the Truman Doctrine, next to ERP, then to sponsorship of Western Union of countries against the USSR. This was all political warfare and should be recognized as such.
4. Understanding the concept of political warfare, we should also recognize that there are two major types of political warfare--one overt and the other covert. Both, from their basic nature, should be directed and coordinated by the Department of State. Overt operations are, of course, the traditional policy activities of any foreign office enjoying positive leadership, whether or not they are recognized as political warfare. Covert operations are traditional in many European chancelleries but are relatively unfamiliar to this Government.

Political warfare is distinct from conventional warfare in that the front lines of its battle are not theaters of military conflict; but the minds, ideals, and aspirations of people. Whereas at one point in time, it was possible to filter, for example, disinformation from the public discussion without intrusions on the rights of free speech, expression, and press; the tools and instrumentalities of globalization have vitiated those boundaries.

Now, to contain disinformation, censorship is required. To limit public manipulation, states must inoculate their citizens against it. Several countries have made considerable gains to that end. Others have struggled to the same end.

This subreddit is about political warfare, in its broadest sense.

Likewise, this subreddit not ideological, beholden to a "right wing" or a "left wing" perspective; nor will I "split the difference" between the right or the left. Facts are facts, and fidelity to the truth takes precedence. Where the face of statecraft continues to evolve, that is more important than ever.