reSee.it - Related Video Feed

On 03/26/2026, the Pentagon's Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) quietly announced BIOW, basic information awareness operations, a cognitive warfare program that changes the rules of the battlefield through belief rather than bullets or bombs. The SCO sits inside the Office of the Secretary of Defense, with a mandate to deliver breakthrough capabilities to war fighters typically within three to five years. Sam Gray, SCO's chief technology officer and lead for autonomy and artificial intelligence, leads BIOW. Speaking at the National Defense Industrial Association's Pacific Operational Science and Technology Conference in Honolulu, Gray stated: the goal of cognitive warfare is to disrupt the cognition and the thinking ability of an adversary or person and influence how they perceive, sense make, and act. This is not propaganda in the old sense. This is something fundamentally different. For most of military history, influence operations required a physical observable. In World War Two, the Allies inflated fake tanks to fool German reconnaissance. You needed something the enemy could see. Gray said that era is over. Quote, I don't actually need the physical observable because I can generate both the physical observable and the associated narrative that comes along with it, and I can promulgate it across the digital environment that allows it to go everywhere. BIOW. BIOW is built on three technological pillars. Pillar one, detection: systems designed to identify adversary generated materials to see what the enemy is pushing into the information space before it takes hold. Pillar two, multimodal effects: AI models capable of generating text, video, and audio, synthetic content designed to shape how target populations perceive events in real time. Pillar three, population modeling: a large scale simulation environment that can model entire populations and produce quantitative metrics. Answering the question Sam Gray himself asked, how good am I doing with this narrative? Did it resonate like we thought it was going to? The technology architecture Gray described is deliberately lean and distributed. Quote, give me 100 Mac minis with 100 different agents on them that are out running and operating, that are lightweight, small, do not require gigawatts of power. This is not a massive fragile supercomputer. This is a swarm. But there's a problem Gray openly acknowledged: the off the shelf AI systems we all use, ChatGPT, Gemini, do not think like Russia. They do not think like China. They were trained on American data shaped by American assumptions. Gray said directly, we have to get to a point where we can understand what it is that they think about and what we can create from a model perspective to emulate and behave like our adversary does. BIOW's goal is to build bespoke AI models specifically tuned to adversary cognitive frameworks. Why is this urgent? Gray pointed to two ongoing adversary campaigns as evidence: The United States is already behind. First, Iran's information operations during Operation Epic Fury. Second, China's large scale efforts to, in Gray's words, change the way that certain populations are thinking. And then Gray stated plainly, The United States is not currently positioned to counter these operations at machine speed. Quote, we need to start to get into that space. Congress didn't wait. The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act directed the Secretary of Defense to formally define cognitive warfare for the department, assign organizational responsibility, and assess the value of narrative intelligence with a deadline of 03/31/2026. BIOW does not operate in isolation. In 2025, the US Army created Detachment 201, the Executive Innovation Corps, commissioning four Senior Silicon Valley technology executives directly into the Army Reserve at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel: Andrew Bosworth, Kevin Weil, Shyam Sankar, and Bob McGrew. They wear the uniform and serve within the chain of command. Together, BIOW's technology stack and Detachment 201's Silicon Valley expertise represent a deliberate convergence of artificial intelligence, influence operations, and military command structure. NATO's chief scientist framed the stakes: cognitive warfare targets trust networks, identity narratives, and institutional legitimacy. The battle space is continuous, operates below the threshold of armed conflict, and the measure of success is not a message received, but a durable change in how a population thinks, decides, and acts. The human mind is now a contested domain. As of April 2026, BIOW is active: performers are being on-ramped, models are being built, simulations are running. And Gray made one thing clear about the vendors chosen to build this system: those who don't keep up will be cut. Quote, I will offramp you. The battle for cognition has begun. Whether you believe this program is an essential shield against adversary manipulation or a capability that raises profound questions about who defines the adversary and where those tools can be aimed, one fact is not in dispute. This is real. It is funded. It is operational. And you are now aware.

The speaker has taken command of the 440th Civil Affairs Battalion in Fort Carson, Colorado. Civil affairs soldiers are described as warrior diplomats. Their mission, skills, and capabilities are considered incredibly important during a time of great uncertainty in the world. The speaker feels privileged and honored to serve and lead these soldiers.

The weak strategic leadership of the 25-year-old staffers in the White House over the past four years is concerning. Lloyd Austin's performance is disappointing, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, should be recalled to active duty and court-martialed for his actions in Afghanistan.

The speaker claims the military is controversial because it is over the target and that President Trump inherited a demoralized military that couldn't recruit. Since Trump's election, there has been a recruiting renaissance across all branches, with waiting lists for police and fire departments as well. Retention is up because service members now have a real commander in chief. The military is reinforcing standards, welcoming back those forced out by COVID mandates, and removing wokeness, DEI, and trans policies. Fort Benning and Fort Bragg are back to normal. The speaker states they are rebuilding the military, reassuring allies, and deterring enemies. They found nearly $6 billion in savings to reinvest, including $50 billion from the Biden administration's climate-focused initiatives. The speaker says they aim to wisely spend the first trillion-dollar budget on warfighters. They claim to have achieved 100% operational control of the border, with 11,000 troops now able to detain illegals and hand them over to CBP. NATO allies are stepping up, the Houthis are feeling American power, and they are deterring communist China. The speaker believes they are making the military great again due to President Trump's leadership.

The conversation begins with discussion of a sudden shift in US/Iran-Israel rhetoric and a development reported as Iran suspending its delegation trip to Switzerland for the opening round of nuclear negotiations. The initial source cited is Al Mayadeen. Iran’s stated reason is ongoing Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon. Iran argues that Israel operating more than six miles inside Lebanese territory violates Article 1 of the MOU, which calls for an immediate end to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, and therefore Iran says there is “nothing to go to Geneva for” if the ceasefire clause is being breached before negotiations begin. The transcript also notes that Donald Trump posted a call for a complete ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Israel. The discussion then shifts to the “wild card” described as Israel and whether Trump can reign in Netanyahu. Colonel argues that Israeli leadership and US supporters were instrumental in putting Trump into the White House and that they are turning current events into a “test of Jewish power,” aiming to bully Trump back into attacking Iran. He claims this is where events are headed. He also references a CNN report that Netanyahu is reportedly lobbying to shape the final US-Iran agreement by pressuring Trump through allies and intermediaries in Washington, mobilizing pro-Israeli senators and media allies. The transcript further states Netanyahu believes a final agreement will be reached but remains concerned Tehran will not uphold commitments, and that Netanyahu said “we will restore security to the north” by keeping the security zone in southern Lebanon as long as Israel’s security needs require. Asked whether Trump can withstand pressure, Colonel states he believes Trump and Iran “collectively reached the point” where they see no point in further war. He describes what he says was Trump’s private impression earlier in political interactions: Trump did not want a war with Iran, thought an arrangement could be reached, and was focused on the United States. Colonel claims Trump’s transformation began with Ukraine, and later shifted into belligerence. He says that at the beginning of the collision with Iran, Trump used language around sending B-2 bombers and said “the war is over,” but that he “couldn’t do it,” and became concerned about financial markets, polls, and the economy. Colonel claims Trump kept repeating that the war would end soon, but that the only way to end it was to end it, not by talking and not by a military solution. Colonel further claims Trump did not want to use a nuclear weapon and that it was “off the table.” Colonel then discusses Trump’s relationship with Israel and the MOU as a rough framework. He says Trump finds elements of the framework comfortable, including not meddling in internal affairs and reducing overseas entanglements. He also claims Trump had conversations with Netanyahu and made it clear he does not want Israel to go nuclear. Colonel portrays Trump’s decision-making as attempting to bring the conflict to closure, after concluding bombing would not work. He says Trump may have been shown information about Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon that contributed to a change in how Trump framed the issue, and he references Trump’s comments about destroying an entire apartment building to eliminate one person. The transcript moves into a broader argument about long-term regional power shifts. Colonel says the two powers that will emerge are Iran and Turkey, and that they will dominate the Middle East for decades. He distinguishes them, asserting Iran will coexist and can be talked to and do business, while provoking Turkey would be “a fight to the finish.” He argues Turkey has a martial character and cites its military effectiveness as being among the top five in the world. When asked about Turkey’s military capabilities, he emphasizes not only technology but human material and soldier character, adding a cultural reference about a funeral song for Turkish soldiers. Colonel then presents “ISR-Strike” as the strategic change behind modern warfare, linking surveillance and standoff attack systems, and claims that this makes older power projection methods less effective. He argues the world must change and criticizes calls to reset to past patterns of “go back in and bomb some more,” drawing analogies to historical Roman limits. In this context, he says Trump understands the need for change and “cutting losses.” Asked whether Israel could sabotage negotiations by continuing strikes and whether Trump could refuse to support Israel even defensively, Colonel says what the question describes is “almost already happening,” pointing to Israeli shelling and a likely effort to attack Hizballah positions. He says Israel needs US assistance with munitions, missiles, and intelligence, and argues that Netanyahu would pressure Washington through officials and lawmakers to force support. Colonel also states he is “genuinely concerned” about the president’s safety. Later, the conversation turns to speculation about how pressure could escalate beyond normal political attacks. Colonel suggests that investigations could be launched involving members of the president’s family, pointing to personal wealth growth and potential exploitation of “unsavory” matters, and references “the Epstein files” as something that could return to center stage. He then argues that escalating outcomes can range from orchestrated efforts to unexpected attempts, comparing to historical assassination attempts. He says calls for resignation are not what he supports at that moment, arguing resignation should occur after closing the chapter. Finally, the discussion addresses how much agency the president and commanders have within the system. The transcript cites claims from CENTCOM and other departments that commanders have less agency than expected and that higher-level elected officials similarly have constraints due to bureaucratic structures, service hierarchies, confirmation processes, and lobbying. Colonel ties this to a broader system of incentives and limited political time for presidents to accomplish objectives, concluding with a reference to his book “A Margin of Victory: Five Battles That Changed the Face of War, Modern Warfare.”

We have manuals and SOPs on how to use individuals to stir up rivalries between tribes in places like Afghanistan. Special operations can manipulate someone with radical ideologies to incite violence between villages. This tactic is not uncommon and has been successful worldwide. Utilizing individuals as "village idiots" to create chaos is a known strategy in our government. Former members agree with this approach.

The speaker credits teamwork between industry, academia, and government for success, specifically mentioning Palantir and individuals Julie and Aaron. He spent 40 years in the army, starting as an infantry officer before becoming a logistician, which he considers a lucky and validating move. He notes that data wasn't always prevalent or easily obtainable, recalling a time in Somalia when the Pentagon called him for equipment status amidst a firefight. He contrasts that with Operation Warp Speed, where he had access to all necessary information, emphasizing its crucial importance.

In the video, the speaker mentions Bill Donovan, the founder of the OSS, and his belief in utilizing civilian capabilities for challenging situations. The speaker also acknowledges the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is asked whether they were necessary or merely a business opportunity.

The conversation discusses “the escalation trap,” framed as a pattern in U.S. war-making where technological precision creates an assumption that tactical success will automatically produce strategic, political control. The guest credits Professor for bringing together people across the political spectrum to ask shared critical questions about how to move forward “as a civilization” while stuck in this trap. The guest describes himself as a centrist, citing an unusual background: in 2008 he was simultaneously a foreign policy advisor for Ron Paul and worked on Barack Obama’s primary teams. He says both had in common a concern about the “forever war” in Iraq, and he argues that leaving Iraq’s forever war was “hurting all of us here,” with the claim that the country is now “on the cusp of a new forever war” after only a few years. He emphasizes that he appears across many media outlets (MS and Newsmax and others) and says his focus is not on electoral politics but on understanding what is happening now and that the situation is not yet resolved. Mike asks the professor to explain “the escalation trap,” referencing the professor’s experience running war simulations involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. The guest contrasts past knowledge-driven negotiation with the claim that, when Trump took office, he did not reach out to people with such expertise and instead relied on negotiators associated with real estate. The professor explains that since the 1991 Gulf War, there has been a presumption that precision air power and smart bombs enable not just hitting targets but controlling political outcomes anywhere. He calls this a mistake made by “smart people,” not due to lack of intelligence. He recounts teaching for the U.S. Air Force in the 1990s, where he taught top pilots who had just returned from bombing Baghdad with F-16s, and found they believed precision strikes would translate into political control. He argues that focusing on tactical success can become a trap because it appears controllable on presentation slides (showing high probabilities of destroying targets), even though tactical results do not ensure strategic outcomes. He illustrates with Kosovo in 1999: the Democratic president Bill Clinton, described as a Rhodes Scholar, allegedly selected 51 targets around Belgrade to weaken or topple Milosevic’s regime, but the outcome was a trap—Milosevic allegedly retaliated with a military campaign against Kosovo, worsening conditions for a pro-democracy movement and contributing to the expulsion of 800,000 Kosovar civilians. He then links this to the Trump approach: he says it was believed that leaders would be killed, but the “second step” assumed the regime would collapse. He argues that the predictable pattern was backlash—he states that, as he previously laid out before bombing Iran, Iran would lash back by taking Hormuz, gaining power, and that the U.S. would become trapped with no ability to escape.

A Canadian military veteran served twenty years in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Their last role was as the senior domestic intelligence analyst for the West Coast Of North America. They were a diplomatic defense attache in The Middle East and completed the initial tour in Afghanistan in 02/2006.

Performance in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I've provided security services to the president of The United States and other high ranking members in the United States government. I've protected diplomatic persons, high net worth corporate clients, media personalities, investigative journalists, and the general public. I continue that work today as a SWAT team leader and executive protection specialist. I've been recognized on numerous occasions for my high level professionalism, proficiency, and knowledge of all security measures while working in those fields. As I analyze what happened and

I served in the National Guard for 24 years as an artilleryman, deploying in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. My battalion provided base security across Europe from Turkey to England during the early stages of the war in Afghanistan. The same battalion is currently deployed in Iraq.

US special operations play a crucial role in foreign policy, now being elevated to the same level as military departments by Congress. Another significant aspect of warfare is psychological warfare, which targets the enemy's mind rather than their physical body. This form of warfare aims to eliminate ideas and is employed by firewall. These reforms align with President John F. Kennedy's foresight about the growth of special operations almost six decades ago.

Personally, I haven't seen the guard out here, but I did serve in the Virginia National Guard for six years. So I know that soldiers are trained to fight and win wars. So the baseline of soldiers' training is to close with and destroy the enemy. They are not trained in law law enforcement. They're not trained to get to traffic stops. So what they're doing here is pretty unclear to me. With regards to the federal partners, you know, more hands are always great, but they're by and large, they're investigators. They they don't have the saturation of experience in street work that would make them really super useful in fighting crime out here. And the final part of this federalization is just the change of, I guess, leadership to someone in the federal government.

The speaker claims the military is controversial because it's over the target, and that President Trump inherited a demoralized military that couldn't recruit due to Joe Biden's actions. Since Trump's inauguration, there has been a recruiting renaissance across all branches, with waiting lists for police and fire departments as well. The military is retaining more personnel who want to serve under a real commander-in-chief. Standards are being reinforced, COVID mandate expulsions are reversed, and wokeness, DEI, and trans policies have been removed. Fort Benning and Fort Bragg are back to their original state. The speaker states they've found $6 billion in DOD savings to reinvest, including $50 billion redirected from Biden administration climate initiatives. They plan to wisely spend the first trillion-dollar budget on warfighters. The military has 100% operational control of the border with 11,000 troops who can now detain illegals. NATO allies are stepping up, the Houthis are feeling American power, and communist China is being deterred. The speaker believes they are making the military great again due to Trump's leadership.