Propaganda and disinformation characterized indispensable components of nineteenth and twentieth century warfare. Examples such as Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" or Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" series made no attempt to honestly display differences between nations, but instead cast all arguments in black and white. In an age where audiences had no readily available resources to question the accuracy of such works, propaganda and disinformation represented effective methods to target the will of large groups of people. The information revolution and the "flattening" of the world as described by columnist Thomas Friedman and other authors has forever altered the use of information or disinformation in warfare. Simplistic characterizations of the enemy and false statements on operations find immediate counter in an age of 24-hour media coverage and access to an uncontrolled internet. The evolution of warfare in concert with the information revolution, as well as current political, demographic, and religious trends also contributes to the downfall of propaganda and disinformation. Twenty-first century warfare, characterized by COL Thomas Hammes as "fourth Generation" warfare, emphasizes not destruction of enemy forces but instead targets the minds and will of political decision makers. Modern warriors use all methods, political, social, economic, or military to achieve their ends. Master strategists in modern conflict, such as Mao or Ho Chi Minh understand tactical or operation considerations pale in comparison to strategic considerations. No longer will victory on the battlefield ensure that national ends are met. When we combine the ascendance of strategic considerations with the information revolution, we find a battleground of thoughts, values, and ideas. This battleground, found on internet websites, news programs, and in the folds of newspapers can enable the strategic victory of tactically inept forces or drag tactically magnificent forces down to strategic defeat. The primary ordinance on this battleground of ideas is not artillery shells, tank rounds, or bullets. It is legitimacy. While culture and nationalism will influence how an audience perceives messages from any actor, legitimacy finds its most firm foundation in credibility and candor. If an audience perceives that a messenger is truthful, they may perceive the content of his message as more legitimate. This legitimacy, the key to victory in the battle of ideas, can only be won by honesty. The interconnected and rapidly evolving nature of the twenty first century, as explored in chapter one, shall enable all individuals, regardless of nation or culture, to seek truth and honest information. The epistemological foundations of ethical theory in regards to honesty, as explored in chapter two, mark the path between the requirement to deceive an enemy in wartime and maintaining the integrity and honesty necessary for national and international support for the conduct of war. This study concludes with a synthesis of this deeper understanding of truth and honesty with a thorough awareness of the nature of twenty-first century conflict to clarify the relationship between the two. In the twenty-first century, Soldiers will fight violent extremists more often than they will face the armies of other nation states. In such confusing warfare, the temptation to use any means will be ever present. As American Soldiers, we must be courageous in the face of such temptation and heed the words of that uniquely American philosopher, Samuel Clemens, who wrote "When in doubt, tell the truth. It will confound your enemies and astound your friends."

ADA 470910 Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)