Through the Fog of Narratives: A Personal Reflection on Military Analysis and the Tom Cooper Phenomenon

Growing up as a person of Pakistani origin, I have had a front-row seat to the powerful machinery of state propaganda. From school textbooks glorifying military triumphs that were, in truth, costly stalemates - or worse - to televised speeches framing every political or military failure as a victory of ideology over reality, I have witnessed firsthand how narratives can be shaped, sanitized, and weaponized. As I grew older, I learned to distrust simple versions of history. That instinctive skepticism, forged in the shadow of state-manufactured triumphalism, has stayed with me. It is why I remain highly critical of the Pakistani military narrative, particularly when it comes to cross-border conflicts, air engagements, and so-called strategic victories that crumble under even light scrutiny.

This critical stance naturally led me to seek external voices - analysts and commentators presumably removed from the local passions and ideological entanglements of South Asia. It was during this search that I first encountered Tom Cooper, an Austrian defense analyst whose name was being circulated widely in Indian media. During India's Operation Sindoor, a limited military action with regional implications, Cooper’s commentary seemed to confirm India's claims regarding Pakistani aircraft losses and strategic miscalculations. He was praised as a "leading Western military expert," a supposed neutral authority validating what many in India had long asserted. Given my weariness with Pakistan’s own distorted storytelling, I found myself intrigued by what he had to say.

But what began as cautious interest soon turned into doubt. A closer look into Tom Cooper's background revealed a profile more consistent with that of an enthusiast than a scholar. He possesses no formal academic training in defense studies, no military service record, and no affiliation with recognized think tanks or research institutions. His analysis, while sometimes informed and historically rich - particularly regarding obscure Cold War air battles - often crosses into the realm of personal conjecture and unsubstantiated assertions when applied to contemporary conflict. What struck me most was his tendency to offer definitive conclusions without adequate sourcing, especially in active war zones where facts are fluid and complex.

This tendency became even more apparent during Israel's recent Operation Rising Lion. In his public commentary, Cooper went so far as to claim that the Israel Defense Forces were deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure, including hospitals. It was not merely that he was critical of Israel’s conduct - that in itself is not unusual, nor inherently wrong - but that he stated this as an established fact without citing any verifiable evidence. No satellite imagery, no forensic NGO reports, no credible journalistic investigations - nothing to substantiate such a grave allegation. Not even Iranian state media, known for its hostility toward Israel, made such direct claims in such absolute terms. For an independent analyst to make such a statement without backing was, to me, not only reckless but also deeply revealing.

At that point, I could no longer regard Tom Cooper as a credible voice. His growing popularity in Indian media, I realized, was not because he brought balanced insight, but because he echoed prevailing national narratives - narratives that sought validation from someone with a Western name and accent. The fact that he remains virtually absent from respected Western analytical forums or academic journals began to make perfect sense. Serious platforms require discipline, sourcing, and balance. Cooper offers certainty, boldness, and alignment - qualities that sell well in polarized media markets but do little to advance truthful analysis.

My experience with Tom Cooper is not just about one man. It is a reflection of the broader problem in today’s geopolitical discourse: the blurring of lines between expert analysis and narrative confirmation. In a world awash with information, the loudest voices are often mistaken for the wisest, and those who feed our biases become our prophets. As someone who has lived within, and then learned to see beyond, state-sponsored myth-making, I know how seductive such voices can be. But I also know the cost of mistaking noise for knowledge.

In the end, this journey has reaffirmed my belief in critical thinking and intellectual humility. Real military analysis is hard, messy, and often inconclusive. It respects complexity. It acknowledges what it does not know. And above all, it never forgets the difference between a well-informed opinion and an unverifiable assertion. Tom Cooper may remain a hero to media outlets looking for easy confirmation, but for those of us searching for truth beyond tribal loyalties, he has proven to be little more than a confident voice in the fog.