Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
You Stay Classy, Northrop Grumman
A hobby of mine is to examine and reflect upon the ridiculous amount of money the military-industrial complex spends on advertising in the DC metro system in its effort to convince congressmen and bureaucrats to buy all the crap it sells. My rugby team practices on a field close to the Capitol South station, and for the past few months, I have passed this series of advertisements for Northrop Grumman trying to sell, uh, something to do with ISR. I'm not really sure what it's all about, but some of the advertisements highlight remotely piloted aircraft. This one advertisement, though, kinda sickens me. I am, like, 98% sure this is a picture of the southern suburbs of Beirut during or immediately after the July War of 2006. Whether or not Israel needed to bomb the southern suburbs during the campaign is up for debate, and I am sure you can make a strong case for Israel's decision to do so based upon the amount of Hizballah infrastructure in what is commonly referred to as "the Dahiyeh". (Which is the Arabic word for "suburb" but has the same societal connotations in Beirut that the French word "banlieue" has in the context of Paris -- no one from the northern suburbs of Beirut, for example, would ever say they live in the "dahiyeh.") Anyway, my point is, should we really be crowing about the destruction of civilian infrastructure during wartime, even when it's within the parameters of international legal conventions? Should the destruction of civilian infrastructure -- civilian housing, civilian businesses, etc. -- really be something we should be slapping each other's backs about, even when the military necessity of such operations is 100% clear? I think you all know the answer is no. And I'm not trying to get all Frantz Fanon on the readership, but if this was, say, a picture of some bombed out city in western Europe after the Second World War, we sure as hell wouldn't be giving each other this kind of collective high-five. ("Woo-hoo! We %$#@ed up Dresden! Hoo-ray, us!") But because this is a neighborhood populated by Shia Muslim Arabs it's somehow okay for Northrop Grumman to take pride in its destruction. Gross.
On the ad, switch the scene
On the ad, switch the scene with the devastated WTC buildings, and switch the logo to al-Qaida, but keep the same exact message.
Chills.
I've noticed these ads all
I've noticed these ads all over the Metro in the past few weeks. I still don't even get what the hell they mean. "By the time you find the threat, we've already taken it out of the picture." Uh, what? Who is the "you"? And who is the "we"? Like, are they saying that by the time a ground force could've figured out that there was a bad guy operating near them, Northrop Grumman has already destroyed the bad guy? Can anyone make any sense out of the slogan?
I was thinking the same
I was thinking the same thing, man. What kind of desensitized jackass do you have to be to approve this ad?Yeah, my earlier comment was
Yeah, my earlier comment was echoing the visitor, but Gulliver raises a good point too. WTF does this crappy advertising campaign mean again?"but if this was, say, a
"but if this was, say, a picture of some bombed out city in western Europe after the Second World War, we sure as hell wouldn't be giving each other this kind of collective high-five. ("Woo-hoo! We %$#@ed up Dresden! Hoo-ray, us!")"
Uhh, that actually did happen. In Dresden there was a lot of British elite soul-searching immediately afterward, but the Marshall Inquiry found it to be legitimate and proportionate. We disagree with it now, but back then and well into the 1950s the DOD felt it an example of a good overwhelming use of force. Similarly, if you watch The Fog of War, you see McNamara expressing remorse after the fact for firebombing Japan, but Curtis LeMay was downright exuberant about how effective it was in sowing terror.
Also, I'm not sure it's necessarily charitable to say Northrop Grumman is celebrating the deaths of innocent Shia Arabs, so much as bragging that it makes effective instruments of killing. Which is kind of what you'd expect a multi-billion dollar weapons manufacturer to do, yes?
One last thought: the Navy and Army have persisted for years in selling their services - drumming up recruitment - by emphasizing their humanitarian work. No one in their right mind thinks they'll sign up and spend their careers handing out bags of rice, but that's the image these services went to expensive lengths to portray. It is, when you think about it, a dishonest representation of the majority of their activities (which can be charitably described as either sitting around or war). Yet there's no complaint about their misleading self-portrayal. Why is the moral outrage only reserved for the corporations?
I should also clarify: I
I should also clarify: I agree that the ad itself is misleading and nonsensical, and shouldn't have been approved. I was only addressing the moral outrage at what it might maybe say.
Fair comments, Josh, but
Fair comments, Josh, but whether or not the firebombing of Dresden was considered *militarily appropriate* and whether or not the destruction was something to cheer about are two different things. I would argue -- and it's always dangerous to take contemporary norms and apply them to wars of another age, of course -- that we can both deem the destruction of civilian infrastructure both military necessary in cases but *always* regrettable and *never* something to take pride in. (Much less use to sell your latest gadget to someone on the HASC.)It is, when you think about
It is, when you think about it, a dishonest representation of the majority of their activities (which can be charitably described as either sitting around or war).
Uh, this is way, way, way wrong. The Marine Corps' ad campaign that focuses on personal valor and non-stop ass-kicking is much, much, much less representative of what the majority of military life is like.
That's inarguably true. But
That's inarguably true. But I think my point about assuming celebration also remains unaddressed: Gulliver rightly pointed out that the copy doesn't make much sense - I'd complain more about their brutality to metaphor than to civilians. I think we agree they're arguing they have ISR elements that can identify and destroy threats before they're identified (which makes absolutely no sense, but whatever). That's not really off-limits when trying to sell a surveillance and weapons platform, is it?
In either case, you're right to say that using a bombed out apartment building is morally repugnant. I didn't get the sense they were saying "Ha Ha look at how many innocent people we can kill," but rather "We are preemptive something something." That's still using inappropriate imagery to brag about a platform, but it's hardly reveling in the deaths of innocents.
(As long as we're talking about bizarre defense corporation adspeak, has anyone ever figured out what LockMart means when they say "We never forget who we're working for?" I mean, I'd certainly hope they wouldn't forget, since that's how they make money. It just never made any sense.)
Haha. Seriously, are these
Haha. Seriously, are these defense corporations so hard-up they can only hire the most incompetent and morally tone-deaf humans in America? Or is that just an indictment of the U.S. advertising industry?Gulliver, please note that I
Gulliver, please note that I specified Army and Navy. The Marine Corps have always been honest in their advertising - and remarkably, didn't seem to suffer the same recruitment woes the other services did.
Abu, the regular advertising industry seems to do just fine. But the government services industry is a bizarre creature with its own rules, norms, values, and vocabulary. It's not surprising very few people can navigate it. I remember a few years ago the Orange Line was plastered with advertisements for the C-27J Spartan. I mean, I like cool planes just like everyone else, but what was going to happen with that ad campaign? It just seemed silly. Then they won the Joint Cargo Aircraft competition. So I guess they see a sufficient return on their ads that they keep putting them out there, regardless of other considerations (like good taste).
Gulliver, please note that I
Gulliver, please note that I specified Army and Navy. The Marine Corps have always been honest in their advertising - and remarkably, didn't seem to suffer the same recruitment woes the other services did.
I did note that. I also noted that it's totally wrong. The suggestion that most of military life involves "war or sitting around" is just completely, ludicrously false -- ESPECIALLY for the Navy.
It's really interesting to me that you think the Marine Corps has "always been honest in their advertising" when a goodly portion of it has involved Marines in dress blues, complete with Mameluke swords, in combat engagements with dragons.
"Haha. Seriously, are these
"Haha. Seriously, are these defense corporations so hard-up they can only hire the most incompetent and morally tone-deaf humans in America?"
More like kids who did their undergrad up North, back-packed in Europe for 6 months, then went to grad school in DC, now living in the Clarendon Corridor or Old town Alexandria, never having served. Never having worked w/ their hands.
Don't forget twirling M1s
Don't forget twirling M1s across America.
You mean they don't fight
You mean they don't fight dragons? Dammit. Actually, I meant that the Marine Corps don't try to blow smoke up our asses about joining to pay for college or stack sandbags in Katrina, the way the Army does.
When will they come out w/ a
When will they come out w/ a Gay commercial for the Army or Navy specifically targeting the GLBT crowd? I hope it'll look and feel like "Glee". And I hope they hire that guy that plays Kurt and have him dance his ass off.
With this new POP-Centric
With this new POP-Centric COIN fad, the Marines should do away with the Dragon Slayer theme and adopt Dreamworks "How to Train your Dragon" idea.
Ex, I just had to check and
Ex, I just had to check and make sure Northrop Grumman is a CNAS donor--and yes, sure enough, they are: http://www.cnas.org/support (along with pretty much every other defense contractor in NoVA and DC).
Wonder if anyone at NG reads AbuM? Two things might happen because of this: 1) NG calls CNAS and threatens to no longer give money; or 2) NG finally wakes up and fires their marketing director.
Thoughts?
Thanks JF for pointing out
Thanks JF for pointing out that oh yes Dresden and the rest was all celebrated at the time.
Let's remember that it isn't just contemporary norms that are different, but the capabilities of the bombers at the time.
When they tried precision bombing they missed by miles, so they switched to area carpet bombing. Which worked in terms of what it was supposed to accomplish, although the jury is out on the efficacy of strategic area bombing.
But without carpet bombing the High Altitude bombers shouldn't make the trip.
There's something else in common - the putative victims bringing it on their own heads.
I often think the last decade was what might have been had the various manifestations of Fascism been confronted from the early 30's on in a more limited fashion.
Actually, I meant that the
Actually, I meant that the Marine Corps don't try to blow smoke up our asses about joining to pay for college or stack sandbags in Katrina, the way the Army does.
Right, except that you've got this exactly backwards... because soldiers DO make money to pay for college, stack sandbags in Katrina, and do most of the other much-more-realistic crap that happens in Army recruiting commercials.
I don't want to get into a big thing about the various services' advertising strategies, but "it's not just a job, it's an adventure" is really a much, much more honest schpiel than "the few, the proud" and a bunch of action scenes of combatives training and helo rappelling.
Abu Muqawama pisses on
Abu Muqawama pisses on pussies like you, murph. If you're trying to scare him, do it in person. He plays rugby for chrissakes!!! What's wrong with you?
OK how would you sell it?
OK how would you sell it?
I punt: showing a bunch of UBL bearded types in a cave plotting mayhem when suddenly they look up in fear and BAM!!
Or maybe show the Sbarros bombing or the effects of a shahid in a restaurant then come out with the "Before" tag.
But that's me projecting.
But what's their market?
Might be our World Of Warcraft tech infatuated RMA types (you know you're still there..).
Or Greedy contract officers or Congressmen.
So how would you tastefully sell something designed to kill or aid in killing?
?????
As realistic as a Bacha Bazi
As realistic as a Bacha Bazi commercial with Joshua clapping and screaming in the background.
From my experiences in
From my experiences in television production, almost exclusively in advertising, I have to say that "a dishonest representation" is the very definition of the business of creating desire for a product. Recruiting ads, I've shot a couple, both for the Army and the Corps. While I am an Army veteran, I always preferred the Marine shoots as they used actual Marines in the ads while the Army (until recently) cast actors. The above comment about Northern grads who have never done manual labor is apt for the entire advertising industry. On a commercial shoot there are anywhere from 30 -100+ people involved and the only ones who actually want to be there are the "creatives" (that's what the ad agency folks call themselves even though I often point out to them that creative is not a noun). Every single other person on the set, from the director on down to the PAs, would rather be working on something other than a television commercial. As for the NG ad under discussion, I find it in VERY poor taste, but is using destruction to pimp a product that much different from using sex to do the same? All a matter of societal mores I suppose.
Great and enlightening
Great and enlightening comment, l0b0t. Thought with respect to your last question, yes, I would say there *is* a moral difference between using consensual sex between adults to sell a product and using the violent destruction of a neighborhood to sell a product.We should round up all these
We should round up all these "Northern" grads who work for Defense Contractors and sell them in Afghanistan for 200 bucks a piece as Bacha Bazi dancers. What say you Mr. Foust, you Afghan expert you. Why have you kept this little Afghan secret from us? Never blogging about, huh?
We could be doing
We could be doing Pop-Centric COIN in Papua New Guinea:
"The Etoro (and Baruya) are a tribe in Papua New Guinea. Their territory comprises the southern slopes of Mt. Sisa, along the southern edge of the central mountain range of New Guinea, near the Papuan Plateau. They are well known among anthropologists because of the ritual homosexuality practiced between young boys and men of the tribe. The Etoro believe that young boys must ingest the semen of their elders to achieve adult male status and to properly mature and grow strong. All Etoro believe themselves to contain a certain amount of life force, the highest concentrations of which is supposedly contained in semen. This life force is believed to pass between members of the group through sexual relations. As mentioned, when young, males have it passed to them through sex. Women are seen to waste the life force if they do not get pregnant through sex. As people get older and their bodies weaken this is attributed to a depletion of their life force. Homosexual behavior, particularly oral sex, is encouraged throughout youth for males, with different sexual roles fulfilled by adolescents of different ages. Heterosexuality is permitted only during a distinct time period of the year (about 100 days) and only in certain places (neither in sleeping quarters nor in the fields, but only in the woods). A woman who enjoys sex too much is seen as a witch trying to steal the life force from a man. Similarly, boys that grow too quickly are assumed to be sapping the life force from other boys. Seen as too sex-hungry, he might be shunned as a witch."
Is my reading comprehension
Is my reading comprehension bad, or does this ad say "we blow lots of shit up in one fell swoop, so that you can rest assured that somewhere in the rubble is the bad guy you were looking for"?
As much as I hate to
As much as I hate to sorta-defend NG and this campaign: I haven't seen that poster in particular, but the theme of the ones I've seen seems to be that somewhere in the photo is a hidden 'threat' -- a camouflaged tank, an RPG, whatever. I guess the idea is that it takes a person a few seconds to spot it, but NG's tech could find it faster. So the photo is really trying to be the environment troops would be operating in, not the aftermath.
In this case, some advertising execs were too in love with their own cleverness to realize what the ad actually came across as.
l0b0t, the Marines were only
l0b0t, the Marines were only slightly less dishonest in their portrayals. During basic training, they take volunteers who have to match a certain height and a certain statuesque look (they check out their jawline and so on) and their job then becomes basically to model for the Marines, they're not drawing guys from units for a short commercial and then sending them back. Ever notice how the guys in the ads and the commercials tend to have a certain look that's not really reflective of the rest of the Corps? At least the Army used guys that looked like the real force, and now they use soldiers who have jobs other than to star in commercials.
Mike, Youre just sore
Mike,
Youre just sore because you weren't pick in bootcamp. You must not have any treasures in that Sunken Chest of yours. May have better luck dancing in Afghanistan as a Bacha Bazi dancer, what do you think?
@ MikeBinMike Thanks for
@ MikeBinMike Thanks for the info, I was unaware of that methodology in the USMC and in retrospect, that does explain the look they always have in their spots. Sounds like a great MOS to get. Me, I carried a Stinger & crewed a Vulcan all over and around some of Earth's more charming garden spots. Unfortunately, when we make war against an adversary without a modern air force, SHORAD tends to become infantry.
Selling weapons in Beirut?
Selling weapons in Beirut? Now, you've really got to read "The Arms Bazaar: From Lebanon to Lockheed" (1977) by Anthony Sampson to get the full historical scoop on that... Beirut. In the late 1970s dealers sold tons of small-arms weapons in that region, turning it into the explosive tinderbox of the 1980s... but that just helped justify bigger arms sales by the real players.
Though much of Sampson's admirably lucid presentation is devoted to the recently revealed malfeasance of Lockheed and Northrop, British manufacturers and France's Dassault works are not neglected; and Sampson is ever conscious of ""the sense of abstraction in big arms"" and the newspeak practiced by this, the most global of industries.
Northrop bribery scandals make for some interesting reading - and as the BAE - Al Yamamah deals show, in arms it's all about bribery. Prince Bernard of the Netherlands was the Northrop agent, and he needed a cool million to get the deal through - and then you've got Kashoggi, etc., the Japanese deal that brought down a government - it's a must-read.
Funny how General Zinni and Homeland Security Chief Chertoff went right onto the board of BAE after their government gig was up, isn't it? Nothing new there, believe me. Likewise, Wolfowitz is trying to rig Taiwan arms deals now... how un-surprising.
Interesting..... . . . Do
Interesting.....
.
.
.
Do six figure Congressmen and decision making bureaucrats use the DC Metro?
.
.
can you say non-issue
I personally like the ads at
I personally like the ads at Rosslyn station that show the two chicks boxing.
I never saw the supposed Beirut ad, although the other ones are currently all over the Pentagon station and are impossible to miss. The ads are effective. If you stop to look at the picture, you can find a heavily camouflaged individual or team in each one. I did so on a day when I wasn't in a particular hurry to enter the Pentagon, and discovered the hidden person (in the jungle terrain ad), and then moved over to the rocky desert ad across the corridor and repeated my efforts.Unless I'm the only person checking out these ads, so they are accomplishing something.
And alas, you're all talking about them too. . .and in terms of image, the ads are marketing weapon technology, not baby formula.
BTW, six figure congressmen may not ride the metro, but I know their staffers (who research and help them adopt positions on weapons, policies, etc) do.
For starters, I'd think it
For starters, I'd think it would be more realistic if it was a grainy IR still of a (Insert Afghan Tribe Name Here) gentlemen having a poo next to their neighbor's wall at 0230. I claim this as relevant since the crew I work with has a nightly betting pool on how many shitt3rs we're going to see per night.
Maybe we're in a slow section of the country. I digress.
In discussing this ad with the rest of my crew earlier, we determined that the ad means one of three things:
1. Going 'Lost Comm' is a motherf*cker.
2. Future Northrop-Grumman UAVs will have self-redacting recorders so certain units do not have to fear scrutiny from a mob of lawyers, JAG officers, Colonels, "Analysts" from the State Department, media flacks, Kabul-based Air Force tourists, space monkeys, asset managers, and general hangers on as is the case now. Simply push the "I DUNNO" button and the uplink shuts off.
3. Northrop-Grumman is now employing the sixth principle of patrolling with regard to their advertisements: "Looking Cool. It doesn't matter if you're effective, so long as you bad ass doing it."
I, for one, welcome our new ISR overlords.
@ Lawfare non-"torture", ROE
@ Lawfare non-"torture", ROE types...
Pay particular attention to @Derp's # 2 point: "2. Future Northrop-Grumman UAVs will have self-redacting recorders so certain units do not have to fear scrutiny from a mob of lawyers, JAG officers, Colonels, "Analysts" from the State Department, media flacks, Kabul-based Air Force tourists, space monkeys, asset managers, and general hangers on as is the case now. Simply push the "I DUNNO" button and the uplink shuts off."
Too many people who haven't lived under the PC regime recommend such stringent scrutiny. It's shall we say academic to them at this point.
You can't win like this, and that questions the morality of even fighting, in particular putting our troops at additional risk.
Was this in the Pentagon
Was this in the Pentagon Metro stop? I went on a tour of the Pentagon last week, and saw this exact billboard and thought how ridiculous it was that they were taking pride in the destruction of some building. Northrop Grumman has that entire stop plastered with ads.
"Do six figure Congressmen
"Do six figure Congressmen and decision making bureaucrats use the DC Metro?
.
can you say non-issue"
Those six-figure Congressmen don't actually make decisions in a vaccuum, they rely on their GS staff to perform the research on which programs should get funded - and those folks definitely DO use the Metro.
Well, although I think the
Well, although I think the ad is your typical defense contractor thing...it could represent the fact that Northrop Grumman ISR can pick out the bad guys hiding among the human shields of apartment buildings and other civilian non-combatant infrastructure- our enemies preferred battleground-THEIR OWN PEOPLE.
But, as for your disgust at using a picture of destruction in Beirut, didn't Hizbullah park their missile launchers next to apartment buildings, place weapons and supplies in schools and UN protected sites and use mosques for military purposes? And of course, didn't the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents do the same thing? With Al Jazera ready and waiting to take pictures of the ZIONIST PIGS killing innocent women and children??
So, how is it that a little good ISR can be a bad thing? I find it amazing that this kinda sentiment still exists-" But because this is a neighborhood populated by Shia Muslim Arabs it's somehow okay for Northrop Grumman to take pride in its destruction."
No one takes pride in destruction- but would you rather just have Hizbullah keep firing missiles into Haifa?
I agree with CoinOperatedBoy
I agree with CoinOperatedBoy that this particular ad is not trying to take credit for the destruction of the buildings. It is not a pre-emptive strike. Rather, the already-existing rubble is serving as a hide-out for some "threat" or other, as with the other posters in this series. The objective is to hook you into trying to find the threat, just like those "hidden pictures" books that children do. Find the tea cup or the ice cream cone that's hidden in the jungle -- that kind of thing. Some of the threats are relatively easy to find; others are almost impossible. By the time you find them, it's too late, which is why you are supposed to want NG to get there first.
The weird thing about these posters is that, unlike weapons advertising up to now, they seem to be aimed at everyone -- Joe congressman and Joe citizen alike. "You" is whoever is standing in front of the ad. It's targeted lobbying -- though NG denies it -- as well as a generalized PR campaign. It's confusing because we're not used to being part of the intended audience.
I really resent these ads plastering my neighborhood metro station.
"Do six figure Congressmen
"Do six figure Congressmen and decision making bureaucrats use the DC Metro?
.
can you say non-issue"
Those six-figure Congressmen don't actually make decisions in a vaccuum, they rely on their GS staff to perform the research on which programs should get funded - and those folks definitely DO use the Metro.
For all the comments about these ads, it is a little scary that a little advertising carries so much weight.
Is the taypayer paying you guys to look at advertising or to research the facts? Hope you guys were given the big bucks cause of your education. Hate to see a bunch of dummies making the call on these expensive systems and the defense of our country. .......maybe it is time to move.
@ Alex Schindler - Ha -
@ Alex Schindler - Ha - that's the best comment in this long set of posts.
@ Sutton and
@ Sutton and Schindler.......
Grab a gun and go in for the kill, it is a free country be a hero. Me, I will go for the area weapon. People know when it is time to get out of Dodge anyone left is a bad guy.
At least I will bring my guys home.....what about you (got body bags)?
The best part of the ad is
The best part of the ad is that Northrop Grumman is doing the "taking out." Not the military or some other government entity using Northrop Grumman gear but Northrop Grumman themselves. You know, because they want to get a little piece of that whole monopoly of force/violence thing the government attempts to keep to itself.
Best part of the Grumman
Best part of the Grumman ad....
It is just an advertisement....take it for what it is.
Who cares. Gets AM some hits on the blog-o-meter.
PS...why is AM advertising ,,,,,for Gumman anyway. Tisk Tisk. Sponsor? If they are not on the list...the others do business with Grumman. Hummm.
If you see the advertisement
If you see the advertisement in person, you can make out the usual national flags that festoon beirut during World Cup season (in this case, 2006, just ahead of July War). I would guess, though, that the yellow flags on the building are indeed Hizbullah flags, probably put up after the bombings, which adds a nice little twist to the efficacy of such operations, ie the "enemy is still in the picture, but you cannot find him." Ha!
"By the time you've found
"By the time you've found the threat, we've already taken it out of the picture."
In each image, there is a hidden danger, (person, weapon, etc.). The idea behind the ads is that in the time it takes for one to notice the hidden danger, it has already been neutralized by Northrop Grumman. It is simply an ad, don't make it more than it needs to be.
Don't be surprised that NG
Don't be surprised that NG tries to have you fired AE- you might soon be the victim of a reprisal by your employer.
Hey Guys, Lots of good
Hey Guys,
Lots of good points, I'm not going to talk on the comments above.
I wanted to make a point from an ad perspective. Each of those pictures has a "threat" in it
The bombed out one has a militant on the lower right corner with an AK
The forest one has a tank in it
The jungle one has 2-3 guys with AKs in it
Hill one has an insurgent with an RPG
The ocean one has a fast attack boat in it (I think??)
ISR= Intelligence Surveillance and Reconaissance.
How I took the ad was "Northrop Grumman can find/ eliminate the threats that it takes bored people like me waiting on the metro a good 5-6 minutes to find. Just wanting to interject how I took the ad.
Keep it real guys
Add your comment