Jeff Rogg sits down with Tom Spahr to explore the “intelligence revolution” and its profound impact on the battlefield and our daily lives. This is more than new gadgets; it is a fundamental shift in how technology like cell phones and AI transforms the relationship between the state and its citizens.
While we often view spying as something targeting “the other guy,” Rogg explains how our constant digital footprint makes everyone part of the intelligence landscape. In modern conflicts like Ukraine and Gaza, a single soldier’s cell phone can inadvertently become a targeting beacon. Beyond physical safety, “cognitive warfare” remains a growing concern, as data is increasingly used to manipulate public opinion and personal worldviews.
While we often think of spying as something that happens to ‘the other guy,’ our constant digital footprint makes us part of the intelligence landscape.
Podcast: Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | Pandora | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Podchaser | Podcast Index | TuneIn | Deezer | Youtube Music | RSS | Subscribe to A Better Peace: The War Room Podcast
Jeff Rogg, JD, PhD, is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of South Florida’s Global and National Security Institute. Previously, he was an assistant professor at the Joint Special Operations University and The Citadel. He was also a postdoctoral fellow in the National Security Affairs Department at the U.S. Naval War College. Jeff’s book, The Spy and the State: The History of American Intelligence, was published by Oxford University Press in June 2025.
Thomas W. Spahr is the DeSerio Chair of Strategic and Theater Intelligence at the U.S. Army War College. He is a retired colonel in the U.S. Army and holds a Ph.D. in History from The Ohio State University. He teaches courses at the Army War College on Military Campaigning and Intelligence.
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, U.S. Army, or Department of War.
Photo Credit: Created by Gemini
Tell me if I have this, possibly, somewhat right:
As an example of an “intelligence revolution” (wherein, the goal is to reorder states and societies along new/different/revolutionary political, economic, social and/or value lines?), Dr. Rogg tells us that (after World War I?), the Old Soviet Union set out to create the New Communist Citizen and, in order to do this, had to watch people and monitor their behavior carefully; this, so as to change these populations’ behavior as the Soviet Union desired. So the Soviet Union, during this time, and in this endeavor, (a) used “pervasive intelligence” and (b) created/developed/refined certain intelligence tools and methods to support same?
As yet an example of an “intelligence revolution” (wherein, the goal is to reorder states and societies along new/different/revolutionary political, economic, social and/or value lines?), the U.S./the West (after the Old Cold War?), set out to create the New Capitalist Citizen and, in order to do this, had to watch people and monitor their behavior carefully; this, so as to change these populations’ behavior as the U.S./the West desired. So the U.S./the West, during this time, and in this endeavor, (a) used “pervasive intelligence” and (b) created/developed/refined certain new intelligence tools and methods to support same?
Question — Based on the Above:
Should we:
a. In the case of the Soviet Union, see these matters from the perspective of the communist “governments” monitoring and trying to change human behavior? But:
b. In the U.S./the West’s case — see these matters from the perspective of capitalist “private companies” monitoring and trying to change human behavior? (Which U.S./Western governments support and defend, because, among other things, the “information collection” capabilities and methods — developed by the private sector — can also be used by the government for government purposes?)
(Note that, from the U.S./the West item “b” perspective that I provide immediately above, the U.S./Western private sector — not U.S./Western governments — initially at least — are the focus of civil-intelligence problems?)
At about the 22:00 point in this podcast, Dr. Rogg speaking:
“What if the war that you are fighting is to shape an entire societies’ behavior and how they think about the world. That’s the scary thing.”
At about the 27:00 point in this podcast, Dr. Rogg speaking (and I, B.C., am paraphrasing now):
“We are watching this convergence of states and societies on the one hand (who, by being saturated with technology, make themselves good targets for sophisticated intelligence actors and militaries as well) and intelligence and military capabilities on the other hand. So just looking at it through the intelligence end — and not through the state and society end — this is a/the mistake.”
Thought — as to the above:
Herein, as to both the “states and societies” matters presented above — and in consideration of the Russian Revolution/Soviet Union example presented by Dr. Rogg at my initial comment above — must we not make the mistake of not looking at the “states and societies” matters that I present in my initial comment above — to wit — the “states and societies” matters relating to the post-Cold War effort by the U.S./the West to create the New Capitalist Citizen, in all the states and societies of the world?
As to my “New Capitalist Citizen” above (aka, and/or affiliated with, “globalization” [and its discontents?]), probably the most significant and influential “states and societies” matter since the Russian Revolution?
Example:
“We agree with (Philip) Bobbitt that a global transition from Nation States to Market States is now well underway. The chief thesis of this Article is that the (U.S.) Supreme Court has embarked on a program of reshaping constitutional doctrine so as to encourage and facilitate the emergence of a fully developed Market State in this polity, with a view of positioning the United States to be successful in meeting the competitive challenges of a new, post-Cold War international order. In taking this course, the (U.S. Supreme) Court has increasingly aligned itself with the prescriptive view of American business and political elites, for whom globalization is understood “not merely as a diagnostic tool but also as an action program.” From this perspective, globalization “represents a great virtue: the transcendence of the traditional restrictions on worldwide economic activity … inherent” in the era of Nation States. Proponents of this vision of a globalized economy characterize the United States as “a giant corporation locked in a fierce competitive struggle with other nations for economic survival,” so that “the central task of the federal government is “to increase the international competitiveness of the American economy.” (Items in parenthesis above are mine. See page 643 of the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law paper “Moral Communities or a Market State: The Supreme Court-s Vision of the Police Power in the Age of Globalization,” by Robert J. Delahunty & Antonio F. Perez.
Thus:
a. The “New Capitalist Citizen”/”globalization” matters that I present above,
b. These are the “states and societies” matter, the context, within which, the most recent “intelligence revolution” takes place?
Also as relates to the New Capitalist Citizen/”states and societies” suggestion, that I make in certain of my comments above, consider the following:
From Page 27 (bottom of column “b” and top of column “c”) of Joint Forces Quarterly 52 (1st Qtr, 2009), in COL Gian Gentile’s article, therein, entitled “Let’s Build an Army to Win All Wars:”
“Retired lieutenant colonel John Nagl, author of “Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife,” is so cocksure of the efficacy of Army combat power that he believes it will have the ability to not only dominate land warfare but also to ‘change entire societies.’ Reminiscent of Thomas Barnett’s Pentagon blueprint argument of building new societies on the Western model where they do not currently exist in the proverbial Third World.”
In looking at the quoted matter, provided immediately above, now let us consider same in relation to Dr. Rogg’s statement at about the 22:00 point in this podcast — Dr. Rogg speaking here:
“What if the war that you are fighting is to shape an entire societies’ behavior and how they think about the world. That’s the scary thing.”
Thus:
a. If, during the Old Cold War, and as Dr. Rogg observes, an “intelligence revolution” occurs as the Soviets/the communists sought to “change entire societies” — both their own — and others,
b. Likewise, during the post-Cold War, and as I observe, might we consider that an “intelligence revolution” occurs as the U.S./the West sought to “change entire societies — both our own — and others?