I remember hearing from someone who served in the Panama Invasion. One of the places they raided was an intelligence building and they were surprised of the amount of intelligence the Panamanians had on the American forces, however, considering the outcome of the Invasion it was clear that none this was utilized. Just having the information is not enough and as shown here not all intelligence is clear cut.
@@randbarrett8706 considering Panama's size and economical output, not really. However, if given to other countries that could ally with it, definitely.
You should expand the definition of OSINT to include publically available satellite imagery (e.g. Google Earth or DigitalGlobe) and social network analysis (e.g. UA-cam videos, tweets and Facebook posts). They are a goldmine.
I may have missed it, but another major problem is turf wars amongst the intelligence agencies. They all want to guard their turf whilst trying to get more, so they may horde information and this distorts the overall picture. After 9/11, the US created the DHS as an information clearinghouse to get around this problem. However, that only lasted a couple of months before the infighting came back and now had a new and major player in the form of the DHS itself. Simply put, the whole episode serves as an example of the bad things that can happen as described in this video.
The structure of any government encourages the fragmentation instead of unification of the intelligence services . In a democracy, different agencies strive for power, influence, and funding, which means they tend to work separately and keep information from each other and to run their own operations. You need to form a separate and preferably temporary command, to force the different and overlapping branches to work together. However, on the other hand, you can do something like the British: to have different branches with different, and distinct responsibility and a culture of cooperation. MI6 is a predominantly foreign espionage organization while MI5 is a predominantly internal security organization. There is another function in making the different intelligence services separate: it is to prevent coup. One invaluable currency in coup is information: who knows what, who's important, who's loyal to who, what kind of resource that can be called up, etc ... The natural repositories of information about those are the intelligence services. Most coup will inevitably involve personnel from of the the espionage branch. Keeping the branches separate limit the ability of the coup plotters to amass support and resources. The inherent distrust and rivalry can be used to play them against each other, making coup less likely. Having one massive, unified command simply means that whoever is plotting the coup can easily purge the entire organization of loyalists, turning it to a coup HQ, and since there are no other intelligence service, no one knows what the fuck is going on except the conspirators, and the dictator only knows about the coup once he was overthrown. One prime example of how a unified intelligence command and run a coup very well was in South Korea. It was precisely for the sake of better coordination in responding to the threat of North Korean commando attacks that the United States pressed the South Koreans to merge their Army Security Command, Navy Security Unit, and Air Force Office of Special Investigations into a single organization. A fully integrated, authentically joint Defense Security Command was ceremoniously inaugurated in October 1977. Two years later, its two- star commanding general, Chun Doo Hwan, used his fully unified command and monopoly of immediate force to seize power when the country’s president, Park Chung Hee, was assassinated. There was no one to restrain him when Chun investigated, judged, and condemned the country’s top general, the army’s chief of staff , and then jumped over all the three- star and four- star officers above him to make himself the country’s president. It could not have happened if there had still been three competing security organizations instead of a monopoly.
One other cause of intelligence failure, though, is the issue of analysts writing reports that confirm what decision-makers are looking for (it's been a while since I read the book, but it was mentioned as a potential problem in an article in the "Handbook of Intelligence Studies" edited by Loch K. Johnson). Overall, awesome content and fantastic channel! Keep it up!
Looking at the title I thought that its about "Why intelligent people sometimes behave like idiots" xD Well, I guess that was my intelligence failing me...
Well, to be fair, intelligence failures _themselves_ can easily lead to very smart people making decisions that turn out to have been stupid once the aftermath can be done.
I can attest, as well, that valid intelligence can come from the very bottom and try to work its way up the chain, but rank and personality get into pissing contests that often results in a report either being watered down or simply ignored. There is also a wealth of intelligence never actioned simply because an intelligence agency (or branch) is just that, an intelligence agency. It's usually not for them to action the intel they produce. For what it's worth, anyway.
Its a for a reason. This video covered basically nothing that happens inside of the intelligence communities. Mostly because no one outside of these communities actually understand whats happening inside of them.
I you mentioned the problem of people seeing what they expect to see, I missed it. What Clausewitz wrote in "On War" about the fog of war, and how the commander needs to penetrate that with his intuition, applies here as well.
During the Cold War, early to mid 1980s the CIA reported that the Soviet and East Block Nations had 50,000 main line battle tanks ready to invade Western Europe. Sources who criticized this said they were counting every rusted T-34 bolted to a concrete plinth as a war monument. So what was the real situation? Also if there were battalions of old T-34s still in working condition, how effective would they have been in a 1980s battle against NATO forces? (The artist Chris Burden made a work called, "The Reason for the Neutron Bomb" he put 50,000 US nickels on the floor of a museum and placed a match stick on top to represent a tank. It was sobering. I don't think he was making an overt political statement, but challenging viewers to think about numbers, scale and war in terms of cost and potential harm)
The Soviets might not have had T-34 batallions anymore in the 80-ies, but certainly some other outdated equipment. Imagine that after the modern T-72's have crashed into the M-1's, Chieftiains and Leopard 2's; some T-64's arrive to take on second rate M-60's, Centurions and Leopard 1's. What is left of NATO reserves after that should be very worried about a bunch of clanking and smoking T-55's! This is why NATO air tactics and theatre ballistic missile operational plans prioritised FOFA (Follow On Forces Attack) on the assembly areas in Poland and Hungary.
I'm currently reading The Secret War by Max Hastings. It covers intelligence operations by all sides during WWII and some of the intelligence failures on all sides are quite interesting.
In other words, the most probable link to break is the one who suffers the most pressure and is less prepared for it. It sounds as vague as it normally is...
@Military History Visualized : +Military History Visualized : Technically-speaking, how do you record your PPT presentations? What software do you use?
The most egregious intelligence failures result from the bureaucratic environment that discourages imagination. The analyst is not allowed to make assessments that exceed the available intelligence because that is considered speculation, not extrapolation. And because the available intelligence is typically meager and distorted, the system tends towards caution and timidity.
Can you maybe do a video on security dilemma? It would be interesting to see something like that also as it has its implications for military perspective
Interesting video. A factor I think also can lead to failed decisions is the human ability to see patters between things, even if no such thing exist. Its just imagination. For example, correlation isn't the same thing as a causation. Just because ice cream consumption and murders have risen at the same time, doesn't mean that ice cream consumption leads to murder.
Will you be doing videos on Turkish/mongol horse-archer tactics using a famous battle - like Manzkert? - as a test-case to show how such tactics often worked?
in 2018+ probably. Era & region are of limited interest for me (might change), additionally I have no prior knowledge and third, I assume the sources are few and probably sketchy as fuck. More here: ua-cam.com/video/0gOZy5xgy18/v-deo.html
A video suggestion/idea I would just like to see at one point (since no one else has done it) is wow WWII German squad and battalion tactics compared to British and American ones
Could you make a video of Luftwaffe Field Division. Or the different army branches in Nazi Germany. Luftwaffe Field Division / Waffen-SS / Heer / Kriegsmarine divisions. It is an interesting topic, and not everyone knows there is more then army and Waffen-SS.
Mikhailia Gacesa a lot of the Soviet manpower during the Moscow counteroffensive were transfers from Siberia, those units were meant to fight the Japanese if fighting broke out.
The other thing about assuming a worst case scenario is that you may end up spreading your resources too thin as you are trying to deal with enlarge number of threats many of which may not exist. He who defends everything defends nothing.
The analysis and preparation must be direction driven. For example: Japan threat is rising. Germans are unstable. Solution: preparation for war. You increase hugely funds allocated to new technologies and "soft" things which do not escalate situation as much such as stockpiling ammunition. That steps you take is even more important than intelligence in itself. You actually need zero intelligence about the enemy if you can outfight it, outsmart it and outmaneuver it. In other words, a superior foe does not need to know its enemy, just have that predatory instinct and know how to kill it.
There's a famous exercise in which you get lots of people to guess the number of beans in a jar, and while each individual guess might be wildly off, the mean is quite accurate. Admittedly this relies on normal distribution, but it is an interesting example of decision making. I often wonder about this exercise when thinking about the political debate within the US of when to join world war two. Either side would have been wildly off by themselves, but the consensus after the attack on Pearl Harbor ended up being quite fortuitous for the US.
I showed you videos to my history teacher and she said she would use them for class and she loved them keep up the great work
thank you!
Amy updates?
@@manubishe Was a while ago but if I remember right we did watch them
@@matthewm2045 Haha thanks for the reply
I remember hearing from someone who served in the Panama Invasion. One of the places they raided was an intelligence building and they were surprised of the amount of intelligence the Panamanians had on the American forces, however, considering the outcome of the Invasion it was clear that none this was utilized. Just having the information is not enough and as shown here not all intelligence is clear cut.
Were there ways of utilizing the information that could have resulted in a different outcome?
@@randbarrett8706 I am curious about that too.
@@randbarrett8706 considering Panama's size and economical output, not really.
However, if given to other countries that could ally with it, definitely.
You should expand the definition of OSINT to include publically available satellite imagery (e.g. Google Earth or DigitalGlobe) and social network analysis (e.g. UA-cam videos, tweets and Facebook posts). They are a goldmine.
Really good. This channel gets better and better.
I may have missed it, but another major problem is turf wars amongst the intelligence agencies. They all want to guard their turf whilst trying to get more, so they may horde information and this distorts the overall picture. After 9/11, the US created the DHS as an information clearinghouse to get around this problem. However, that only lasted a couple of months before the infighting came back and now had a new and major player in the form of the DHS itself. Simply put, the whole episode serves as an example of the bad things that can happen as described in this video.
The proverbial stovepipe. I know it well!
The structure of any government encourages the fragmentation instead of unification of the intelligence services . In a democracy, different agencies strive for power, influence, and funding, which means they tend to work separately and keep information from each other and to run their own operations. You need to form a separate and preferably temporary command, to force the different and overlapping branches to work together. However, on the other hand, you can do something like the British: to have different branches with different, and distinct responsibility and a culture of cooperation. MI6 is a predominantly foreign espionage organization while MI5 is a predominantly internal security organization.
There is another function in making the different intelligence services separate: it is to prevent coup. One invaluable currency in coup is information: who knows what, who's important, who's loyal to who, what kind of resource that can be called up, etc ... The natural repositories of information about those are the intelligence services. Most coup will inevitably involve personnel from of the the espionage branch. Keeping the branches separate limit the ability of the coup plotters to amass support and resources. The inherent distrust and rivalry can be used to play them against each other, making coup less likely. Having one massive, unified command simply means that whoever is plotting the coup can easily purge the entire organization of loyalists, turning it to a coup HQ, and since there are no other intelligence service, no one knows what the fuck is going on except the conspirators, and the dictator only knows about the coup once he was overthrown.
One prime example of how a unified intelligence command and run a coup very well was in South Korea. It was precisely for the sake of better coordination in responding to the threat of North Korean commando attacks that the United States pressed the South Koreans to merge their Army Security Command, Navy Security Unit, and Air Force Office of Special Investigations into a single organization. A fully integrated, authentically joint Defense Security Command was ceremoniously inaugurated in October 1977. Two years later, its two- star commanding general, Chun Doo Hwan, used his fully unified command and monopoly of immediate force to seize power when the country’s president, Park Chung Hee, was assassinated. There was no one to restrain him when Chun investigated, judged, and condemned the country’s top general, the army’s chief of staff , and then jumped over all the three- star and four- star officers above him to make himself the country’s president. It could not have happened if there had still been three competing security organizations instead of a monopoly.
What, the Panzershreck??
Quite intersting, thanks for that.
That reminds me a bit of this xkcd comic:
xkcd.com/927/
This is one of your best videos yet man, keep up the good work.
One other cause of intelligence failure, though, is the issue of analysts writing reports that confirm what decision-makers are looking for (it's been a while since I read the book, but it was mentioned as a potential problem in an article in the "Handbook of Intelligence Studies" edited by Loch K. Johnson). Overall, awesome content and fantastic channel! Keep it up!
One of the best channels on UA-cam
Looking at the title I thought that its about "Why intelligent people sometimes behave like idiots" xD Well, I guess that was my intelligence failing me...
was an intelligence analyst before. can relate.
Well, to be fair, intelligence failures _themselves_ can easily lead to very smart people making decisions that turn out to have been stupid once the aftermath can be done.
@@johnhazatoth6125 You were an intelligence analyst, but got smarter?
Love your videos, always well thought out and researched.
An excellent video on the topic of Military Intelligence.
Really good video! Would love to see this topic covered in even more depth! 👍
I can attest, as well, that valid intelligence can come from the very bottom and try to work its way up the chain, but rank and personality get into pissing contests that often results in a report either being watered down or simply ignored. There is also a wealth of intelligence never actioned simply because an intelligence agency (or branch) is just that, an intelligence agency. It's usually not for them to action the intel they produce. For what it's worth, anyway.
My old job! never thought MHV would bring this topic up. Great work, buddy!
Bravo! A great introduction.
I feel bad for all of the Army flow charts he had to try to read. Those things are so vague
Its a for a reason. This video covered basically nothing that happens inside of the intelligence communities. Mostly because no one outside of these communities actually understand whats happening inside of them.
ian doyle as someone inside them, we still don’t fully understand it
@@theholyhay1555 That's on purpose, it's called "compartmentalization". It's in case of a breach.
Can you do a video on the evolution of special operations forces and tactics and special operations in the 20th century.
I you mentioned the problem of people seeing what they expect to see, I missed it.
What Clausewitz wrote in "On War" about the fog of war, and how the commander needs to penetrate that with his intuition, applies here as well.
great video
During the Cold War, early to mid 1980s the CIA reported that the Soviet and East Block Nations had 50,000 main line battle tanks ready to invade Western Europe. Sources who criticized this said they were counting every rusted T-34 bolted to a concrete plinth as a war monument. So what was the real situation? Also if there were battalions of old T-34s still in working condition, how effective would they have been in a 1980s battle against NATO forces?
(The artist Chris Burden made a work called, "The Reason for the Neutron Bomb" he put 50,000 US nickels on the floor of a museum and placed a match stick on top to represent a tank. It was sobering. I don't think he was making an overt political statement, but challenging viewers to think about numbers, scale and war in terms of cost and potential harm)
The Soviets might not have had T-34 batallions anymore in the 80-ies, but certainly some other outdated equipment.
Imagine that after the modern T-72's have crashed into the M-1's, Chieftiains and Leopard 2's; some T-64's arrive to take on second rate M-60's, Centurions and Leopard 1's.
What is left of NATO reserves after that should be very worried about a bunch of clanking and smoking T-55's!
This is why NATO air tactics and theatre ballistic missile operational plans prioritised FOFA (Follow On Forces Attack) on the assembly areas in Poland and Hungary.
Man this video is now required reading for our Intelligence class!
really?
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Same here. Keep up the good job.
I'm currently reading The Secret War by Max Hastings. It covers intelligence operations by all sides during WWII and some of the intelligence failures on all sides are quite interesting.
Just found your channel it's great subscribed
In other words, the most probable link to break is the one who suffers the most pressure and is less prepared for it. It sounds as vague as it normally is...
Russia: "Write that down, write that down!!"
An echo from the past, felt in the present :D
@Military History Visualized :
+Military History Visualized :
Technically-speaking, how do you record your PPT presentations? What software do you use?
Measurement and Signature Intelligence is everything that isn't already something else.
The most egregious intelligence failures result from the bureaucratic environment that discourages imagination. The analyst is not allowed to make assessments that exceed the available intelligence because that is considered speculation, not extrapolation. And because the available intelligence is typically meager and distorted, the system tends towards caution and timidity.
Can you maybe do a video on security dilemma? It would be interesting to see something like that also as it has its implications for military perspective
Interesting video.
A factor I think also can lead to failed decisions is the human ability to see patters between things, even if no such thing exist. Its just imagination. For example, correlation isn't the same thing as a causation. Just because ice cream consumption and murders have risen at the same time, doesn't mean that ice cream consumption leads to murder.
I'll see causation if you propose a negative correlation on that one tho ;)
Why intelligence failure happens?
Me: *stares deeply at my time in the American school system*
Interesting observation, Mr. Betts. Were you part of the intelligence community, perchance?
Will you be doing videos on Turkish/mongol horse-archer tactics using a famous battle - like Manzkert? - as a test-case to show how such tactics often worked?
in 2018+ probably. Era & region are of limited interest for me (might change), additionally I have no prior knowledge and third, I assume the sources are few and probably sketchy as fuck.
More here: ua-cam.com/video/0gOZy5xgy18/v-deo.html
A video suggestion/idea I would just like to see at one point (since no one else has done it) is wow WWII German squad and battalion tactics compared to British and American ones
you might want to listen to the first few minutes of this video: ua-cam.com/video/0gOZy5xgy18/v-deo.html
Military History Visualized Thank you
Military History Visualized So.... that's a yes?
Could you make a video of Luftwaffe Field Division. Or the different army branches in Nazi Germany. Luftwaffe Field Division / Waffen-SS / Heer / Kriegsmarine divisions. It is an interesting topic, and not everyone knows there is more then army and Waffen-SS.
I'm not a native speaker myself, but shouldn't the title be "Why DO intelligence failures happen?"
Yes, the way he wrote it, it should not contain a question mark as it is not a question.
Yeah, either include the "do" or drop the question mark.
Hippie McFake It works as is.
57 Mickey Don't be coy, you know what "a native speaker" means.
Still not exactly sure if you are trying to say "failure" or "Fehler". Well, I supposed either would work.
can you make a video about german assault troops/tactics during ww2? i cant find anything on the subject
Only twice...
One reason is that other side wants you to fail and does all he can to make it happen.
Outro song?
I always thought James Bond was more like Counter Intelligence..
"Humint is fake news, Sigint is the future of the intelligence community. " - Mattis circa 2017
The answer to sooo many popular conspiracy theories in a nutshell!
Anytime someone is trying turn something into an analogy of markets, consumers, products, etc, you can bet your ass it's 100% an American saying it
Intelligence failures happen because people is not "intelligent" enough.
very interesting
The only non-english subtitles option is Serbian. Makes you ownder
So much complication. All you have to do is constantly predict that war will not break out. You will only be wrong 10% of the time.
So how did German intelligence miss all those Russian divisions in Barbarossa? (I'm going to watch the Barbarossa Blunders vid again)
Mikhailia Gacesa a lot of the Soviet manpower during the Moscow counteroffensive were transfers from Siberia, those units were meant to fight the Japanese if fighting broke out.
but the background music in the end is anticlimactic
The other thing about assuming a worst case scenario is that you may end up spreading your resources too thin as you are trying to deal with enlarge number of threats many of which may not exist. He who defends everything defends nothing.
The analysis and preparation must be direction driven. For example: Japan threat is rising. Germans are unstable. Solution: preparation for war. You increase hugely funds allocated to new technologies and "soft" things which do not escalate situation as much such as stockpiling ammunition. That steps you take is even more important than intelligence in itself. You actually need zero intelligence about the enemy if you can outfight it, outsmart it and outmaneuver it. In other words, a superior foe does not need to know its enemy, just have that predatory instinct and know how to kill it.
There's a famous exercise in which you get lots of people to guess the number of beans in a jar, and while each individual guess might be wildly off, the mean is quite accurate. Admittedly this relies on normal distribution, but it is an interesting example of decision making. I often wonder about this exercise when thinking about the political debate within the US of when to join world war two. Either side would have been wildly off by themselves, but the consensus after the attack on Pearl Harbor ended up being quite fortuitous for the US.
i only read the title and instantly though Fremde Heere Ost
Hillary should take notes tbh
if I was going for world domination I'd pick you as a general
Ryan Cartwright he is good at analyzing past events but not neccesarrily got at being a real general
+1
An intelligence.
because he rolled a 2d20 and got below 5? ;)
ambiguity. ( am-big-you-it-ee)
Heh, SIGINT.
AngMori No, this is not the guy from MGS3.
Not that. That guy is named after the original SIGINT. :)
If only trump would have had this video before he ran
he would still be a moron
And yet, he won. Funny how that happens.
Trump doesn't read.
Good video, but not well presented. It is a really dificult task t summarize so many information!