In the 1980s under Ronald Reagan American military intelligence plastered Afghanistan with posters like the following one, promoting violent religious extremism as a form of invincibility.

That old propaganda campaign has come full circle now, as I see very similar thinking (obviously seeded by Russian military intelligence) being propagated by posters (pun intended) on LinkedIn.

Doesn’t that look a lot like a clumsily-worded explanation for the cartoon above?

Is this language being used by John Wood not also terrorism recruitment? It appears to be goading people into joining a “belief” system by promising a magic ability to violently and quickly overthrow their government.

Of course no such magic exists, this is disinformation. And of course that’s not even close to the truth about Afghanistan or why the Taliban were able to roll through territory so quickly.

Hint: they leveraged Twitter and motorcycles, a modern take on the Russian “speed, momentum and violence of action” doctrine (although it reminds me also of American “evolution of revolution” in the 1986 Toyota war and the Japanese on bicycles seizing Singapore rapidly in 1941).

Even more to the point I find it infuriating to see Americans try to blame the soldier who is unfed and unpaid, lacks fuel and ammunition, and faces the very real issue of his family being unprotected at home as the Taliban advance to kill them.

People sitting in their comfy chair banging on a social media comment box, spreading toxic and cheap narratives like “they should have fought harder” are a total disgrace to humanity — an insult to the nearly 70K who sacrificed everything fighting for their country.

If anyone wants to talk about serious issues related to soldier morale, it was a US President’s flimsy negotiations with the Taliban behind the back of an elected Afghan government that set the tone from the top as a clear act of bad faith.

Speaking of Twitter, here is a more clear-eyed take on what LinkedIn should be talking about:

If the Taliban returns to power, I along with other women…will either be stoned to death or executed in a public space in front of a crowd.

Women now are expected to lose everything.

If that sounds like a foreign policy issue, in reality this is just as much a domestic one for America. Can you tell which one is which?

Now might be a great time to remember that Ronald Reagan not only as President claimed the Mujaheddin (religious extremists who violently subjugated women) were “like our founding fathers”, he also repeatedly cited a man named Winthrop in his speeches about America.

Winthrop was a religious leader who subjugated women, calling them agents of the devil.

America finally switched sides in 1996 to fight against religious extremism in Afghanistan, which is also when the discussion started to bloom about rights of women in Afghanistan despite it being obviously late.

The Mujahedeen period (1992-1996) was marked by ferocious, internecine warfare that scarred all aspects of Afghan life. Women’s rights and freedoms were severely restricted. Grave human rights abuses included extra-judicial executions, torture, sexual violence, disappearances, displacement, forced marriage, trafficking and abduction. This period represents one of the darkest chapters in the history of Afghan women. The brutality and predatory nature of the civil war, or Mujahedeen period, contributed to the emergence of the Taliban and their consolidation of power throughout much of the country after their capture of Kabul, September 1996.

It’s kind of a recent thing, in other words, for the American government to officially care about ending the oppression of women and children. Slow and late, as the author Ghost Wars explained a long time ago:

…individuals inside the US bureaucracy, at the state department, elsewhere, who began to warn that the United States needed to change its political approach to this covert [support of Mujahedeen], that they needed now to start getting involved in the messy business of Afghan politics and to start to promote more centrist factions and to negotiate compromise with the Soviet-backed communist government in Kabul to prevent Islamist extremists from coming to power as the Soviets withdrew. These warnings, when you look at them with the benefit of hindsight, are quite prescient and certainly were strongly given, but they languished in the middle of the bureaucracy and were largely ignored by both second term Reagan administration and the first Bush administration…

In September 2007 the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing where Chairman Lantos gave a retrospective and put it like this:

America should not be in the business of arming, training and funding both sides of a religious civil war in Iraq. Did the Administration learn nothing from our country’s actions in Afghanistan two decades ago, when by supporting Islamist militants against the Soviet Union, we helped pave the way for the rise of the Taliban?

When LinkedIn posted the above propaganda it seems they are rolling back time to a genuinely awful American ignorance and flirtation with tyranny, as well as exposing the tools of Russian military intelligence today.

Neither are ok, of course.

To be fair it is being said now that neither Russia nor China are pleased by Islamic extremism taking control of Afghanistan.

They fear that a revival of the harsh Islamist code and rule by intimidation that underpinned the fundamentalist group’s government in the 1990s would lead to a resurgence of Muslim extremists.

The emerging geopolitical quagmire doesn’t mean that Russia will pass up the opportunity to use anti-democratic religious recruitment propaganda of the Taliban to destabilize America.

It’s a shame to see LinkedIn facilitating the posters. If we were talking about WWII they would most certainly be censored. Or as an article in Business Insider recently put it:

“To counter Chinese and Russian IO, we need to be aware of the threat and educate the public,” the retired special-operations PSYOP soldier said. “Americans need to understand that this is a real, ongoing threat. Sometimes war doesn’t mean gunfire and explosions.”

Where are the grey hats?

The buried lede in the story about Palantir’s role in Afghanistan is this sentence:

I knew his face. I doubted the computer. I was right.

If you doubt Palantir, you’re probably right.

In other words, the American company shamelessly built an overpriced and unaccountable “justice” system that tries to paint the world with an overly simplistic good/evil dichotomy.

How was the farmer on the tractor misrecognized as the cell leader in the purple hat in the first place? After the air strike was called off, and the man was spared execution, the PGSS operators rolled back the videotape to review what had happened. To see what they could learn.

“It was his hat,” Kevin explains. “There’s a window of time, around dawn, as the sun comes up,” he explains, where colors are “read differently” by the imaging system than how it sees them during the day. In this window of time, the farmer’s hat was misidentified as purple, setting off a series of linkages that were based on information that was erroneous to begin with.

But what if the S2 shop had killed the farmer in the purple hat in error? And what if, out of fear of backlash over yet another civilian casualty, the data that showed otherwise was deleted so that it would never become known? This invites the question: Who has control over Palantir’s Save or Delete buttons?

“Not me,” says Kevin. “That’s an S2 function.”

Kafka had warned everyone about this kind of thinking with his dystopia “The Trial“.

A computer mistaking the color of a hat due to lighting changes, in a secretive proprietary system… is an obvious recipe for expensive garbage just like it’s 1915 again.

If WWI seems forever ago and you prefer a 1968 reference, Afghanistan failures basically prove how Palantir is a god-awful failure (pun intended, they claim to offer “god mode”), much like the IGLOO WHITE disaster of the Vietnam War.

The problem with knowing history is you’re condemned to watch people repeat the worst mistakes.

This story about Palantir reminds me of another one from long ago:

In the early hours of September 26, 1983, the Soviet Union’s early-warning system detected the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles from the United States. Stanislav Petrov, a forty-four-year-old duty officer, saw the warning. […] He reasoned that the probability of an attack on any given night was low—comparable, perhaps, to the probability of an equipment malfunction. Simultaneously, in judging the quality of the alert, he noticed that it was in some ways unconvincing. (Only five missiles had been detected—surely a first strike would be all-out?) He decided not to report the alert, and saved the world.

So does ignoring Palantir mean saving the world, or at least one “starfish“?

Maybe.

I’ve written and presented about these fancy and expensive tools spitting critical errors many times; who really knows how many people have been killed unjustly by failing to question the machine.

In 2016 I gave a talk showing how a system billed as “90% accurate” could be broken 100% of the time by doing simple color shifts, just like how it is has been described above breaking Palantir.

Since then I’ve continued to do it repeatedly… and what concerns me is how Palantir is completely closed and proprietary so independent experts can’t demonstrate how it’s a bunch of expensive junk (makes life and death decisions no better, or even worse) designed to put excessive power into the hands of a few men.

---

Update December 2022: the US Army is politely calling Palantir’s lock-in technology stack a pile of garbage (“unpopular“).

At the foundation of [our popular] strategy is standards and things that we can provide out to industry that enable their black boxes to plug in. And so it gets rid of a lot of the — ultimately all of the — vendor lock issues that we may have in parts of the architecture today.