Discussion: intelligence gathering, political science homework help

Please respond to the following discussion questions

Discussion Topic 1:

For most of history, intelligence gathering has largely been the province of human endeavor – HUMINT. With the rise of technology, much of the traditional role of HUMINT has been displaced by SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) and IMINT (Imagery Intelligence). This has resulted in a competition for resources between these disciplines and a seemingly endless debate over which is more effective. Following 9/11, many allegations surfaced that the US Intelligence Community had become overly reliant on technology, that the HUMINT sector had been neglected and seriously degraded. The argument goes that 9/11 could have been prevented if we had more “boots on the ground” than “eyes in the sky.”

Defenders of technology assert that the war on terrorism doesn’t lend itself to traditional HUMINT activities. They point out that terrorist organizations are often a small, close-knit circle of individuals making penetration by outside agents difficult at best. They also tend to operate in areas of the world where the US does not have ready access. Much of traditional spycraft during the Cold War took place in foreign diplomatic posts around the world rather than in the Soviet Union itself. Terrorist organizations do not have embassies that can be targeted for intelligence purposes. What do you think? Have we gotten lazy? Is it easier to let the machines do it? Or has HUMINT become a quaint relic of a bygone era?

Discussion Topic 2:

There is little question that, intentionally or not, media can be manipulated to spread the message of terrorism. Images of beheadings, child executioners, and burning prisoners alive are repeatedly broadcast by compliant media outlets. Some have questioned why the American media does not do more to counter these messages of hate with messages of patriotism from our own side. During WWII, Hollywood turned out movie after movie that promoted American patriotism over the Nazis and Japanese. Seen in the context of today’s values, many of those films are now dismissed as “propaganda.” During the war, however, they were effective means of unifying the country. Films like “30 Seconds Over Tokyo,” “Sergeant York,” “Guadalcanal Diary,” “Sahara,” “The Story of G.I. Joe,” and “Bataan” were all hugely popular and unabashedly patriotic.

Compare these films with the release of “American Sniper” which set blockbuster records at the box office. Worldwide, it grossed $547.1 million against a budget of around $58 million. It is the highest grossing war film of all time, breaking the record set by “Saving Private Ryan.” Many media critics, however, dismiss it as “glorifying war,” “demeaning to the Islamic peoples,” “simplistic,” “bigoted,” among others. To endorse such movies would be “endorsing a political view.” So who won Best Picture? “Birdman” which grossed $103 million. “Saving Private Ryan” didn’t win either. Who did? “Shakespeare In Love” after grossing $289 million against Ryan’s $481.8 million. Who remembers “Birdman” and “Shakespeare in Love” now?

Critics point to this as proof positive that the Motion Picture Academy is full of left wing Commie pinkos that will never vote for a positive patriotic military image. Academy supporters point to the 2009 Best Picture “The Hurt Locker” as proof that military pictures can win. On counterpoint, the critics dismiss the Locker as unrealistic. Veterans groups panned the movie. From the Huffington Post: “Hollywood’s version of the Iraq war and the soldiers who fight it, and their version is inaccurate.” VetVoice: “If you know anything about the Army, or about operations or life in Iraq, you’ll be so distracted by the nonsensical sequences and plot twists that it will ruin the movie for you.” Army of Dude: “The way the team goes about their missions is completely absurd.” Bouhammer: “I was amazed that a movie so bad could get any kind of accolades from anyone.” Air Force Times: Quoting a bomb disposal team leader who called the film’s portrayal of a bomb expert “grossly exaggerated and not appropriate,” and describing the lead character as “more of a run and gun cowboy type … exactly the kind of person that we’re not looking for.” Another bomb disposal team member said that the lead character’s “swagger would put a whole team at risk. Our team leaders don’t have that kind of invincibility complex, and if they do, they aren’t allowed to operate. A team leader’s first priority is getting his team home in one piece.” Military Times: “Some of the scenes are so disconnected with reality to be almost parody.” Former British bomb disposal officer Guy Marot said, “James makes us look like hot-headed, irrational adrenaline junkies with no self-discipline. It’s immensely disrespectful to the many officers who have lost their lives.” Ouch!

What do you think? Is it possible for the media to be patriotic without being accused of “endorsing a political view?” Is it possible for an accurate, positive military movie to ever win the Best Picture Oscar in the contemporary atmosphere?

Instructions:

Please provide a follow up response to the discussion topic. The response is to the topic mentioned above.

Requirements:

Min 1 paragraphs

APA format

2 References cited min

Discussion Topic 3:

Communication between government and the media during a crisis has often been described as a love-hate relationship. The idea that “publicity is the oxygen of terrorist groups” raises the question of how much terrorists influence media coverage. It has also been stated that “the media and terrorists have a symbiotic relationship; they mutually depend on each other and the terrorists manipulate the media to further their propaganda war.” The constant repetition of the videos of the airliners striking the twin towers is cited as an example of the freedom of the press advancing the cause of terrorists. It led to a movement to prohibit showing of the videos by some. Are the criticisms valid? Is the media a tool of terrorists?

Instructions:

Please provide a follow up response to the following 2 responses. The responses are to the topic mentioned above.

Requirements:

Min 1 paragraph

1 Reference cited min

Response 1:

I most definitely agree with the very first line being that the communication between the government and the media during a crisis is a love-hate relationship. The media will be there to put out the information you need to get out to people as fast as you need to, but at the same time will put out any and all information they can get their hands on, even the information the government wish were suppressed at a time of crisis.

“A terrorist group commits acts of violence [in order] to Produce widespread fear [and to] obtain worldwide, national, or local recognition for their cause by attracting the attention of the media (Terrorism Research, n.d.).” Based upon this information which is corroborated by numerous other sources, I would say it is safe to say that the media is most definitely a tool of the terrorists.

The other question brings up a more humane type of thinking. The question was are the criticisms valid. I feel yes. Media is the for the most part the oxygen to terrorist organizations. It is what helps give them credibility, notoriety, and spread their message. Which brings up a problem in human thinking or psychology. The example stated of “the constant repetition of the videos of the airliners striking the twin towers.” My question is; why does the media feel the need to constantly show this horrific footage? It’s the same reason the media highlights more negative reports going on throughout the country than it does positive, and that’s because we as humans are more attracted to what is called “sensational news”. Things that are bad or horrific are for some reason more enticing to watch on the news than the fact that a 14 year old teenager earned valedictorian and or his high school and simultaneously is graduating college with a bachelors degree.

The terrorists know Americans especially feed off of this sensational news reporting and if they commit horrific acts, it will most surely be reported in the west, and their message will spread ultimately achieving their goals. I do agree that the criticisms are valid and that the media can absolutely be a tool of the terrorists. Does that mean our media are agents of those organizations, absolutely not. By merely doing their jobs however, they can be.

Michael

Response 2:

Now more than ever terrorist definitely influence the media by promoting their movements through the internet and social media sites and use it as a tool. The CIA states we are at war with ISIS that has grown faster and poses threats in the widest array targeting individuals by using social media forums to radicalize and recruit than any other terrorist organization (Morell, 2015, para. 2). Sophistication is the forefront and the group’s use of multilingual propaganda called al-Hayat enables them to use Go Pros, and cameras mounted on drones to appeal to followers they target on social media platforms (Morell, 2015, para. 3). The group has a lot strength that poses significant threats to the U.S. First, it is a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East thus putting the integrity of Iraq and Syria at risk, and effecting U.S. national interest with these regions (Morell, 2015, para. 4). The ISIS has taken more territory than any other terrorist organization in such a short amount of time (Morell, 2015, para.6). Second, the ISIS has around 20,000 foreign nationals from over 90 counties fighting for its cause and they all have easy access to the U.S., which means they could attack the U.S. on their own, or follow orders by the ISIS’s leadership to conduct an attack (Morell, 2015. Para. 8). The group is building a following among other extremists around the world and they will inherit their brutality and target enemies of the ISIS to include the U.S. (Morell, 2015, para. 9). Last, the group calls to recruit young men and women to carry out acts in the U.S. on behalf of the ISIS to demonstrate their solidarity (Morell, 2015, para. 9). The sophisticated use of social media allows this organization to reach out to U.S. based extremist that advocate and aid in potential U.S. attacks.

Natalie

< a href="/order">