AI. Fiction: Three Days of the Condor. 2026 Current Events.

Fiction of Three days of the Condor

 

In 2026, Three Days of the Condor

—celebrating its 50th anniversary—is cited by analysts as the definitive bridge between fiction and reality regarding military and intelligence distrust. 

 

1. The Fictional Narrative

Based on the 1974 novel Six Days of the Condor by James Grady, the 1975 film follows Joe Turner (Robert Redford), a "bookish" CIA researcher whose job is to read world literature to find hidden codes or plots. 

• The Conflict: Turner returns from lunch to find his entire clandestine office murdered.
• The Conspiracy: He discovers the massacre was ordered from within the CIA to cover up a rogue plot to control Middle Eastern oil.
• The Resolution: Turner leaks the story to The New York Times, though the film ends with the haunting question: "Will they print it?". 

 

2. Reality: The "Condor Effect" in 2026

The film's themes of institutional betrayal resonate with modern 2026 concerns over a "deep state" and lack of public confidence in government institutions. 

 

• Institutional Paranoia: Just as the film mirrored the post-Watergate cynicism of the 1970s, it now serves as a touchstone for contemporary "low confidence" in the military and intelligence sectors, where only ~50% of the public expresses trust as of late 2025.
• Fictional Intelligence (FicInt): The film's premise—analysts reading fiction to predict real threats—is now a standard reality. In 2026, military agencies officially use "FicInt" (fictional intelligence), hiring sci-fi writers to "game out" future scenarios.
• Historical Realism: Former CIA officials have noted the film’s accuracy, stating that its "reading rooms" and internal cadences were strikingly similar to real-world CIA cover facilities.
• Global Impact: The fiction was so persuasive that the KGB reportedly established its own "Scientific Research Institute of Intelligence Problems" in direct response to seeing the office portrayed in the film. 

 

3. Comparison of Themes

Theme  1975/1976 Fiction 2026 Reality

 

Trust Betrayal by "The Company" (CIA) Record low public confidence in military leadership.

 

Source of Threat "The enemy within" (rogue factions) Public concern over "deep state" and politicized ranks.

 

Information Reading books to find secret codes Using AI and "FicInt" to analyze narrative trends.

 

Whistleblowing Leaking to traditional newspapers Massive digital leaks and decentralized info-warfare.

 

For those looking to revisit the source material, the original 1974 hardcover and various 50th Anniversary editions remain available as of early 2026.

AI. Fiction and Reality up to 2026. Military and current events.

Fiction and Reality. Confer with AI

 

In 2026, the intersection of fiction and reality in the military highlights a paradox: while fictional narratives are increasingly used to prepare for future wars, real-world confidence in the institution remains at historic lows.

 

1. The Reality: A Persistent Confidence Crisis

Public trust in the U.S. military has stabilized but remains significantly lower than in previous decades.

Declining Trust Levels: As of late 2025, only about 49% to 51% of Americans express "a great deal" of confidence in the military, a sharp drop from 70% in 2018.

 

Key Drivers of Distrust:

 

Politicization: Both sides of the political aisle perceive the military as overly politicized, citing concerns ranging from "woke" practices to the presence of extremists in the ranks.

 

Past Failures: Disillusionment stemming from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the chaotic 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan continues to impact perception.

 

Leadership Conduct: High-profile ethical lapses and misconduct among senior leaders have further eroded the military's image as a professional bastion.

 

Recruitment Impact: While some branches reported meeting goals in 2025 by lowering standards or increasing waivers, only 10% to 13% of young adults (ages 18–29) express a high willingness to serve. 

 

2. The Fiction: Narrative as a Strategic Tool

Modern militaries are intentionally using "fiction" to navigate the complexities of "reality."

"FicInt" (Fictional Intelligence): Organizations like NATO and the U.S. Department of War (formerly DOD) employ science fiction writers to create scenarios for future conflict, such as AI-generated warfare and gene-manipulated soldiers.

 

Strategic Planning: Fictional "Red Teams" are used to "destabilize" and "scare" leaders by imagining radical threats that traditional planning may overlook.

 

Training and Empathy: Fiction is used in professional military education to help officers visualize complex battlefield realities and think beyond tactical checklists. 

 

3. Media Influences and Public Perception

The line between fictional portrayals and real-world military service often blurs for the public. 

 

Cinematic Realism: Major 2026 film releases like Project Hail Mary and Dune: Part Three lean into themes of "competence under pressure" and "lonely hero missions," which resonate with military viewers' sense of duty and psychological reality.

 

Counter-Stereotyping: Advocates suggest that soldiers using social media to share their "hero's journey" and personal transformations can act as a bridge, using narrative art to dispel negative real-world stereotypes and boost recruiting.

AI. Lack of Confidence.

 

Confer with AI.

 

Question:  Lack of confidence...

 

AI Overview

Marine admin school CO fired after 'loss of confidence'

"Loss of confidence" in the military is a formal phrase used by superiors to remove a commander from leadership, signaling a breakdown in trust regarding their judgment, performance, or integrity, covering issues from misconduct (like harassment, DUIs, poor decision-making) to broader command climate failures, often serving as a less detailed, "catch-all" justification for administrative removal (Detachment for Cause) without public disclosure of specifics, effectively ending that officer's command potential.

What it Means

 

Breach of Trust:

Superiors believe the officer can no longer effectively lead their unit, maintain discipline, or achieve mission success, notes thewarhorse.org and Challenge Coin Nation.

 

Administrative Tool:

It's a formal way (like Navy's Detachment for Cause) to relieve a commanding officer without detailing sensitive reasons.

 

Broad Scope:

Can range from minor lapses (poor judgment, bad command climate) to serious issues (collisions, sexual harassment, DUI).

 

Reasons for "Loss of Confidence"

Performance Failures: Failing certifications, operational incidents, poor decision-making, or not meeting command metrics.

 

Misconduct: Yelling, unprofessional behavior, DUI, sexual harassment, or creating a toxic environment.

 

Integrity Issues: Questions about judgment, ethics, or adherence to military values.

Consequences for the Officer

 

Career Impact: Usually ends the officer's command track, often preventing further promotion or significant command roles, though they might continue serving.

Public Perception & Debate

 

Vagueness:

 Critics argue the phrase is a vague cover-up that shields misconduct, leading to public distrust and speculation.

 

Accountability:

Others, including some former officers, view it as necessary accountability for command standards, protecting the unit and service

Fiction becomes Reality. Stream it if you can.

 

“Robert Fyne, author of The Hollywood Propaganda of World War II (1997), notes the film's "strong warning to the American people about demagoguery, domestic fascism, and mind control, while praising the virtues of freedom of the press".[75]    One film historian has concluded that Keeper of the Flame is "truly provocative in that it was one of Hollywood's few forays into imagining the possibility of homegrown American Fascism and the crucial damage which can be done to individual rights when inhumane and tyrannical ideas sweep a society through a charismatic leader".[74]    Other authors have noted that the film is different from other anti-fascist films of the period in that it clearly links wealth and fascism and points out the ways in which patriotism may far too easily be turned toward fascist ends.[76]…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeper_of_the_Flame_(film)   Black & White film.

 

History...Preparedness for 2024.......Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas fires almost every member of Homeland Security Advisory Council. March 2021

Some of the members had been installed under former President Donald Trump.

ByLuke Barr

March 26, 2021, 8:56 PM

• 4 min read

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas fired most of the members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council on Friday, according to a letter obtained by ABC News.

"I am considering how the HSAC can bring the greatest value to the Department and how the expertise, judgment, and counsel of its Members can be harnessed most effectively to advance the Department's mission. I expect to work closely with the HSAC and to rely on its Members to help guide the Department through a period of change," Mayorkas wrote.

The HSAC produces reports and advises the secretary on a range of issues from domestic violent extremism to biometrics.

The Homeland Security Advisory Council is made up of 30 members -- both Democrats and Republicans. Some of those who were fired included allies of former President Donald Trump, such as former acting DHS Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli and former acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas Homan.

"In the service of an orderly transition to a new model for the HSAC, I have ended the term of current HSAC members effective March 26, 2021," he wrote. "I will reconstitute the HSAC in the next few weeks, once the new model has been developed. Chairman William Bratton and Vice Chair Karen Tandy will remain in their HSAC leadership positions. William Webster will remain the HSAC's Chair Emeritus. I was privileged to work with Judge Webster throughout my prior service in the Department."

Bratton, Tandy and Webster are the only three members still listed on the HSAC website. Bratton, the former NYPD commissioner, serves as commissioner.

Ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee John Katko, R-N.Y., slammed the action.

"While these members serve at the pleasure of the Secretary, today's action sends the message that this Administration has no intention of upholding a bipartisan, unifying approach to securing our homeland," Katko said. "The HSAC is not intended to be an echo chamber for what the current DHS Secretary wants to hear. Its mission is to provide a knowledgeable, diverse set of perspectives to combat the evolving threats of today and tomorrow."

Trump's former acting DHS secretary, Chad Wolf, who appointed some of the members, tweeted that it was a mistake as well.

"While I respect the right for a DHS Secretary to alter the HSAC to address their needs, dismissing the entire council outright and stopping a lot of important work (that was underway) is not the right approach," Wolf wrote.

ABC News' Mark Osborne contributed to this report.