Tags
War has once again broken out. And Mike Elgan has an excellent report on what makes this one so different from all previous ones.
As he points out, when the US invaded Iraq twenty years ago with the intention of removing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and installing a democratic government, we watched the war unfold on TV, especially on cable TV outlets like CNN.
These news outlets got their raw footage and information mostly from three sources. The first was talking heads at Pentagon podiums — Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and their ilk gave us the George W. Bush administration’s official perspective. These presentations were punctuated by vetted footage showing airstrikes and battle victories.
The second was “embedded” reporters. Journalists who were approved by the pentagon were taken along with US troops and streamed live footage from military vehicles streaming across the Iraqi desert and from the front lines in the war.
And the third was “Baghdad Bob,” Hussein’s beret-wearing official spokesman, who presented the opposite view from the Americans. When the Pentagon reported that US troops had entered Baghdad, “Baghdad Bob,” whose actual name was Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, said that US troops were nowhere near the capital and were being badly defeated by Iraqi forces. The world was divided over who was telling the truth, and there was no way to tell (until “Baghdad Bob fled).
In general, our knowledge of that war came from three sources:
- The Bush administration
- The US military
- Saddam Hussein
Of these sources, the Bush administration’s content dominated. The reason is that it was based on billion-dollar intelligence resources, including spy planes, satellites, human sources cultivated within Iraq, special forces in combat zones, and CIA spies in the country.
In other words, nearly all actual intelligence came from the US government, which had a strong interest in cherry-picking the intelligence that supported its position in the conflict.
No source of information conveyed the perspective of ordinary Iraqis. And no source of information provided unvetted, independent intelligence, or even intelligence from the opposing side.
Today’s war
Fast forward to this morning. The Russian military launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. And the sources of information in this conflict are completely different from those in the Iraq War. The images and perspectives we’re seeing are dominated by smartphone videos shared on social media.
Unlike in the Iraq War, where the only cameras were controlled by a handful of journalists and the US military, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a world where most people have video cameras in their pockets and can stream footage via social networks to a global audience.
While individual smartphone video clips will replace the voyeuristic market previously satisfied by video streams from embedded reporters during the gulf war, the intelligence will be dominated by open-source intelligence.
What is Open Source Intelligence?
Open Source Intelligence — which normally goes by the initials OSINT — is the production of knowledge based on publicly available data sources. It’s not the data itself — this video, that post on Twitter, etc. — but the analysis of public data.
To oversimplify, OSINT sometimes involves large numbers of publicly shared observations centralized and processed into information — such as looking at 1,000 TikTok videos of Russian tanks moving toward the Ukraine border and then using artificial intelligence (AI) to estimate the total number.
It also involves the opposite: Thousands of amateurs analyzing a single data source — such as thousands of Twitter users noticing that the wristwatches worn by Russian officials show that a “live” meeting actually occurred several hours previously.
Why Open Source Intelligence is such a big deal
OSINT is especially important in the Russian invasion of Ukraine because Russian President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB agent, is obsessed with disinformation and false-flag operations. (A false flag is when an attack is carried out by one side and blamed on the other in order to justify a “counterattack.”) OSINT is the strongest and fastest method we have for disproving false-flag disinformation.
Here are four false-flag incidents conducted by Russia leading up to the Ukraine invasion that were disproved by OSINT.
Another reason is that open-source intelligence can be independent. Normally, any kind of intelligence during a conflict is made public for the purpose of propaganda — which is to say, for swaying public opinion toward a self-serving narrative.
The Vietnam War set a historic precedent as the first fully televised war. And the effect was to turn US public opinion against the war and the coverage helped fuel the anti-war movement.
The Pentagon learned a lesson from that conflict, which was: Control the information and imagery at all costs. And they applied that lesson in the Iraq War.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine will be the first war to fully play out on social media. There will be no possibility of controlling the information.
And with social media, artificial intelligence, and Internet-enabled crowd-sourcing, the intelligence will belong to the global public. And that changes everything.
beetleypete said:
I am not so convinced that all the ‘personal’ phone footage is genuine. Some scenes surfacing on social medai are from 2014 and earlier. It is not good to trust any news source these days, whatever the origin.
Best wishes, Pete.
LikeLiked by 2 people
fgsjr2015 said:
Like many other people, I’ve grown weary of social media’s physical (and often identity) disconnect through which the ugliest of comments can be and too often are made without consequence for the aggressor. Nonetheless, it has enabled far greater information freedom than that allowed by what had been a rigidly gatekept news and information virtual monopoly held by the pre-2000 electronic and print mainstream news-media.
Besides the Black Lives Matter and George Floyd protests, I seriously doubt that Greta Thunberg’s pre-pandemic formidable climate change movement, for example, would’ve been able to regularly form on such a congruently colossal scale if not in large part for the widely accessible posting and messaging systems of Facebook.
P.S. Contrary to prominent conservative proclamations, I found that it silences progressive voices as much as, if not more than, conservative opinions.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nicholas C. Rossis said:
Thank you for the well-balanced comment!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas C. Rossis said:
Fair enough. But the sheer volume of media information means that there’s bound to be plenty of genuine footage as well. The trick is to find a reliable source, ideally someone you know personally or have interacted with in the past.
LikeLiked by 2 people
joylennick said:
What a sad, sad world it is! Surely, not one, lone man, especially one as evil and power/mad as Putín, should be allowed to be in power so long!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nicholas C. Rossis said:
I’m sure he’ll get his comeuppance in the end!
LikeLike
Jan Sikes said:
You are so right, Nicholas. What a different world and the general public reporting pretty much assures it’s not filtered news.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas C. Rossis said:
We live in the future but haven’t realized it yet!
LikeLiked by 1 person
missimontana said:
On one hand, it’s good that ordinary citizens can show what is really going on. On the other, such footage is often manipulated or altered by trolls, fanatics, and conspiracy enthusiasts. It’s why I never share videos of current events on social media anymore. I’ve found that both sides can be equally guilty of spreading misinformation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas C. Rossis said:
I was just discussing this very thing with Pete. To me, the sheer volume of media information means that there’s bound to be plenty of genuine footage as well. The trick is to find a reliable source, ideally someone you know personally or have interacted with in the past.
LikeLike
missimontana said:
That’s part of the problem, it’s all so real. I shared videos from people I trusted. Turns out, most were fake or labeled to be misleading. We were all duped. Anyone can take news footage or a eyewitness video and change it for their agenda. I know this because I was fortunate to get this information from an American veteran who pointed out how gory war footage was being exploited by extremists on all sides. He is against sharing it because it exploits innocent civilians who can’t give consent. And he reminded us to think of the parents of dead children, or the children themselves, seeing these images played over and over. He says stick to news sources or, as you said, a trustworthy person only interested in the truth who wants to do no harm. And be very careful what you share. The veteran I mentioned is on Twitter as Red T Raccoon; not sure if he’s still there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas C. Rossis said:
Many thanks for sharing that! I’m preparing a post on that very subject, so stay tuned 🙂
LikeLike
missimontana said:
Twitter is already putting out tweets warning of mislabeled photos. It’s sad, but rather than exposing truth, the internet seems to promote spreading lies. You’re welcome for the info. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
DebyFredericks said:
I agree that it’s not possible to keep secrets these days (not that one should). As one who clearly remembers the Iraq invasion with great disapproval, I would note this administrations approach being very different in that they called out and predicted Putin’s tactics days before. The Bush administration, by contrast, was gas-lighting everybody. It was sad for me to see how they sent Colin Powell around telling lies to the world.
In my cynical view, though, no amount of videos and condemnation is sufficient. That’s all words, and it allowed Putin to seize parts of Georgia, Eastern Ukraine, Crimea and other border regions, without meaningful consequence. Force of arms is all he respects. Ukraine may not be part of NATO, but they are a US ally and our troops should be present with them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas C. Rossis said:
While I appreciate the sentiment, that would likely spark WWIII and no one wants that…
LikeLike
DebyFredericks said:
That’s what Putin is counting on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
kimwrtr said:
Reblogged this on Kim's Musings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: The World’s First Tik Tok War | Nicholas C. Rossis – World Global Search
healthcrazego said:
Yes, all the information on the war is available online now. Instead of the news cherry picking specific battles and heart-breaking tragedies aimed at specific points, the popularity of clips and videos is a factor. People want to see explosions, bodies flying, and firefighting tactics. They don’t want to sit around and listen to the same brains give them a new pre-defined scoop, or hear the same friends chat about the same topics over and over again in the mainstream news. Now it’s war wherever for whoever wants to watch it, not only where some media person says.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas C. Rossis said:
We sure do live in interesting times…
LikeLike