Let me
ask you a question.
Would you, gentle reader, go off to join a
group on the other side of the world, whose main distinguishing mark seems to be
its penchant for hacking off heads on camera, or burning people alive?
What was your answer?
I am probably correct if I say that, even
while you probably react to the suggestion with horror, you equally have not
the slightest hesitation in identifying exactly which group I am talking about.
It’s the Islamic State, alias ISIS. Right?
Well, actually, you’re wrong. I was talking
about the Sinaloa drug cartel[1] of Mexico, which also has a
penchant for hacking off heads[2], gutting people with chainsaws, or
burning them alive in oil drums. But why did you immediately imagine I was talking
about ISIS?
It’s because of the relentless media
coverage of ISIS, isn’t it? It’s because of the brand that is ISIS now, one
which is immediately, at once, so recognisable that not only can it not be
mistaken for anything else, others stand
in danger of being mistaken for it?
Just like all petroleum jelly is, in popular consciousness, “Vaseline”, all
toothpaste, in India at least, “Colgate”, and all vacuum cleaners in Britain
are “Hoovers”, all Islamic, or suspected Islamic, terrorism is “ISIS” now, am I
right?
Why do you think this is so? Why has ISIS
reached a level of mass identification, instant brand-name recognition if you
will, which other outfits like al Qaeda can only dream of? It doesn’t happen just
like that, and it certainly isn’t the level of brutality that determines its
familiarity in the popular consciousness. The aforementioned Mexican drug
cartels could certainly give ISIS a run for its money in terms of sadistic
brutality; and even other Islamic groups like al Shabaab of Somalia are at
least as viciously brutal as ISIS when it comes to the treatment of captives,
and in some ways significantly worse[3]. But who knows about them?
There is one obvious answer: marketing.
I assume that anyone who reads this article
is familiar already with the highly theatrical execution videos ISIS routinely
puts online and which usually appear on sites like LiveLeak or Heavy.com. As
part of my self-imposed task of satirising ISIS on my comic strip and
discussing them more seriously on my blog, I do watch these videos, and I have
come to some conclusions about them:
1. They are of two broad categories, meant
for very different audiences. One set is clearly made for dissemination in the
West, and that is the type familiar to everyone, the one where prisoners in
orange jumpsuits are made to kneel while knife-wielding men in ninja suits, such as the ludicrously named "Jihad John", harangue the viewer in impeccable English. At first, the ultimate demise of the
prisoner would not be shown on camera, and this led to accusations, which in at
least one case were undoubtedly accurate[4], that some or all of
these videos were faked. Lately, the videos are actually beginning to show the
full decapitations (or, in one recent case, death by tank tread), and I can
assure you that they are anything but faked, and also that they are anything
but easy watching.
However, the videos were, and are,
remarkably theatrical, with carefully composed shots, multiple camera angles,
often clearly made with multiple takes, and put together very slickly with
fancy logos and music. The whole intent is to be eye catching, immediately
recognisable theatre. One recent one I watched, for instance, was from
Afghanistan, and this is what I had to say about it:
There seems to be a shortage of orange jumpsuits in
Afghanistan. Maybe the CIA delivery channels are having problems with distribution.
However, there
are obviously enough black-ninja-suit-wearing ISIS men with equestrian skills,
enough horses, enough
morning-mist-shrouded Afghan mountainsides, and enough Hollywood production to
compensate.
Also, evidently beheading has palled as a method of execution. Blowing up people en masse with dynamite is the bold new way to go.
However, even that video had the victims blown to pieces and body parts bouncing
around in front of the cameras. ISIS has apparently decided that it has to
achieve a higher level of brutal realism to gain attention.
The second set of videos, which have not
changed since they first came out, were meant very much not for Western
consumption. There are no speeches, no fancy camera angles, no musical
soundtrack, no jumpsuits, no ninja outfits, and the camera – often obviously a
mobile phone camera or a hand held camcorder – does not discreetly move away
when the knife comes down. The videos are exceedingly brutal, were always
exceedingly brutal, and nobody, at any time, could have had the slightest doubt
that they were genuine.
If the intent of the first set of videos
was to gain attention and branding, the purpose of the second is much simpler:
terrorisation of actual, real opponents – people whom the makers of the video could
actually be fighting – and to break their morale and will to resist. In other
words, it is actual terrorism, the application of fear as a weapon,
indistinguishable in its object from what George W Bush had hoped to accomplish
in Iraq with his Shock and Awe.
Do you get what I am talking about here?
The purpose of the second set of videos is psychological warfare. The purpose
of the first set of videos? Brand recognition, on as broad a level as possible,
among as many people as possible.
In other words, they're advertisements.
In other words, they're advertisements.
ISIS is coming to get you! Boo! |
2. The first set of videos could not have
been made without at least some level of professional expertise, including
studio editing, and, if we are to believe some alleged “experts”, with the use
of green screen technology. Someone is obviously providing substantial software
services. Who is this “someone”? Was this “someone” recruited by the ISIS
Human Resources from among the best Hollywood has to offer? Only in a universe
where the Easter Bunny has dinner with Santa Claus at the restaurant run by the
Tooth Fairy would this make some kind of believable argument.[5]
3. Also, I am not exactly convinced that
any band of literal cutthroats and desperadoes in the desert of Iraq can just
get hold of orange jumpsuits and black ninja outfits, enough to equip a whole
line of hostages and an equal number of knife wielders. I live in a reasonably
modern country with a reasonably modern market, and I doubt I could get hold of
a jumpsuit, orange or otherwise, easily – let alone those spiffy all-black
outfits, not to mention horses.
Therefore, the general run of videos that
are presented to the West by ISIS are, first, made for publicity and brand
recognition, and, second, depend heavily on the kind of slick direction and production
that is the hallmark of the average feature film.
Then there is also the matter of the ISIS
flag. I have said once before that[6]
In the course of drawing this strip, I realised – somewhat belatedly –
something I think worth mentioning. You know that – as in today’s episode – I
have frequently had cause to draw ISIS flags. Have you ever thought about this ISIS flag? It’s
interesting, for more reasons than are immediately apparent.
For instance, it’s
instantly recognisable, and nobody will ever mistake it for any
other flag, anywhere. For another, it’s easy
to copy and reproduce (fortunately
for me, and, I imagine, other cartoonists), unlike, for example, the
horrendously complex flag used by its parent organisation, Al Qaeda. In fact
one doesn’t have to know a word of Arabic to be able to reproduce the ISIS
flag, even from memory alone.
I mean, even I can.
Now, isn’t this – from a marketing point of view –
very interesting? An instantly recognisable logo, setting out one’s brand on
the market, totally unique and easy to spread further, with ethnicity and
linguistic ability no bar whatsoever? Lots of companies would kill for that
kind of recognition…in a manner of speaking.
I wonder, somehow, if ISIS had the benefit of some top
level marketing professionals in selecting its emblem. But that’s really too absurd, to imagine top level marketing
professionals would design a jihadist group’s flag, for maximum impact. Right?
Right?
Or they can directly appeal to potential recruits with memes like this, which allegedly would make young men rush off to join:
You can add to this the ISIS magazine –
yes, they have a magazine! – Dabiq;
the alleged ISIS “currency”, mention of which was made on the so-called
mainstream media before people realised it was too tall a story to swallow; and
ISIS’ grandiose plans to take over everything between Spain to the western part
of India, illustrated by a map. A map!
Even I could draw a map saying that, say, Botswana is my personal property.
Doesn’t make it so.
Now, I’m going to ask you all something: suppose
you had a new start up company, which was desperate to make a mark on the
public consciousness: what might it do to do so? What might a marketing professional
advise it to do?
-Create a very distinctive profile, so
characteristic that anyone can instantly identify it? How might it do that, in
a market teeming with competitors? One answer – go further than them. Do the
same things, but more brazenly, more eye-catchingly, so that people identify
you with the action, not your competition?
-Create an instantly identifiable logo, so
distinctive that, for example, even other, totally unrelated things might be
mistaken for your logo, just on the basis of the colour alone? A beard club
outing, for instance?
-Make what might be called a huge IPO on
the stock market? Now, I am a dedicated opponent of capitalism, so I have never
owned a share and never will, but as far as I’m aware, the value of a company
on the stock market has little or nothing to do with its real value. It’s
mostly what the perception of it is, what people think that matters. The stock
market is a grand Ponzi scheme, in other words, one long endless boondoggle. So
if people think your new company is big and powerful and the up and coming
thing, your stock will rise through the roof, even if the reality is nothing
like that. In fact, the more mythical your capabilities get, as long as people continue to swallow the claims, the further your stock will soar.
Putting these together, the whole public
perception of ISIS becomes one of a marketing phenomenon, which has turned
heads all over the world, and which has obscured what the group really is, or
rather was (because, like any other animal, it’s a plastic, amorphous,
evolving organism).
So what is
ISIS?
Let’s get the first thing out of the way: the
core ISIS, the one in Syria and Iraq, is not a guerrilla organisation. It’s a
conventional fighting force, which tends to fight fully conventional campaigns,
something which actually renders it extraordinarily vulnerable to any opponent
with the weapons and desire to strike it. There is next to no reason why the
US, for example, with its allegedly greatest military force in the history of
the world, the country which turned Saddam Hussein’s army to slag, can’t knock
out lines of Toyotas driving serenely through the desert...if it really wants
to. Only, maybe it doesn’t[7].
Secondly, ISIS is, even as a conventional
army, only a light infantry organisation. It has relatively little armour, artillery,
or anything much in the way of air defence. It has no air force, no navy, no
complex net of command and control (to have that third would be suicidal
against any enemy with strong electronic warfare capabilities – command centres
would be at once located and destroyed). As such, its fighting ability depends
mostly on movement, tactics, and terrorising the enemy into fleeing...by, for
instance, beheading prisoners, thus terrifying opponents by showing them
exactly what will happen if they stay and fight.
As a military force, however, its abilities
are strictly third grade against a powerful enemy. In comparison, I would like
to cite the Sri Lankan Tamil insurgent group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam (LTTE). The LTTE had a far greater level of control, armament, and
organisation than ISIS has. It had not just artillery and a measure of popular
support, but also a navy of speedboats and mini submarines, a worldwide fund collection
and supply network, even an air force of Czech-made Zlin light aircraft converted
for bombing. But even with all this, it was defeated and destroyed by the relatively
tiny army of Sri Lanka, with almost no external help at all.
Can anyone explain why ISIS can’t be wiped
out by an alleged international coalition while the much more heavily armed,
equally fanatical, LTTE could be taken out by Sri Lanka alone?
Basically, then, ISIS is a light infantry
force, which by all rights should have been destroyed a long time ago by the
West, if it had really been interested in destroying it. Instead, it’s taken a
space in the public consciousness as a kind of gigantic, unstoppable force of
absolute evil and darkness, a kind of Orc army, against whom all hatches must
be battened down, and everyone take to arms.
Really, and I mean this totally unironically,
the ISIS marketing strategy should be taught in business schools. People could
learn something from it.
But if the West isn’t interested in
destroying ISIS, and if ISIS’ entire public image is an exercise in brand
building, what does that mean?
The answer is obvious: build up a
sufficiently evil opponent, a Black-and-White Peril if you will, and anything
you do is all right in order to fight it. Suspend civil liberties, close down
borders, declare martial law...invade and occupy nations on the other side of
the planet...everything goes when it comes to fighting Absolute Evil of that
magnitude.
Really, when you can create something like
that, why would you ever want it to end? It’s the goose that lays the golden
egg.
Now, there’s one very significant way in
which ISIS has been dramatically more successful at drawing attention, even
among Sunni Muslims, than al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, when all’s said and done, is a
Sunni Arab organisation from West Asia with almost no members from anywhere
else. Its appeal has never been particularly widespread, and other disaffected
Muslim fundamentalist groups have preferred setting up their separate outfits
rather than identify themselves with it. Even when they wanted to identify
themselves with it, al Qaeda itself has often been chary of giving them
official recognition. It’s like a very conservative, old style business.
ISIS, with its aggressive marketing
strategy, has succeeded in unexpected ways. When Abu Bakr al Baghdadi declared himself
the Caliph Ibrahim, he also automatically declared himself Amir ul Momineen,
that is, the Commander of the Faithful, whom it is every “true” Muslim’s religious
duty to obey. At one stroke, therefore, he broke through the West Asian Sunni
Arab straitjacket of al Qaeda and made himself, potentially, the king of all
the world’s Muslims. No wonder that one of the groups that reacted with the
greatest rage to this announcement was...al Qaeda.
I’ll explain what this means. In simple
terms, no Muslim jihadist group now needs to carefully build up its own
identity, an image for itself, and attract support. All it has to do is swear
allegiance to ISIS, declare itself an affiliate of the organisation or part
thereof, and it immediately is guaranteed of attention and even of recruits.
Not everyone can spend money to travel all the way to Syria and Iraq to join
ISIS, and even if they want to, the very difficulty of the trip is often more
than sufficient to squelch the dream and keep it in the realm of “if only...”
But what if an ISIS franchise is right there next door – or you can set up one
yourself?
How much does it cost to make those black
flags anyway?[8]
This is probably not what the people who
had helped set up, arm, train and finance ISIS had anticipated. The franchise
has broken the bounds of the intended market, and become so well known that exactly
what happens to ultra-well-known consumer products like Reebok shoes or Louis
Vuitton bags has happened to it.
In short, knockoffs.
At this point, it no longer really matters
if the core ISIS is destroyed, for the survival of the brand. It does not even
matter if the Caliph al Baghdadi is killed or is already dead or even if he
never really existed. He’s become the Ronald McDonald, the Michelin Man, the
Colonel Sanders...you get the idea. This is why ISIS is sprouting in countries
as disparate as Bangladesh[9] and Afghanistan, Nigeria and Somalia.
Normally, then, one would anticipate a
certain amount of disquiet, even incipient panic, in the capitals of the west;
a desire to try and dial back the demons they unleashed. But there seems to be
no such thing. Instead, they are intent on their farcical bombing of ISIS in
Syria and Iraq, which seems to be more about destroying Syrian infrastructure
and limiting Iranian influence than about fighting ISIS; and they’re gearing up
further towards confronting Russia.
It would seem then that they think ISIS
still has a lot of potential as a brand, one can still turn a dividend for
stock holders.
I will close with this prediction: In two
years’ time, at the most, we will hear talk of “moderate ISIS” the West can
deal with, people who share “democratic values” and can be “partnered with.” We
will see them being armed and trained, increasingly overtly, and unleashed on
recalcitrant nations with Muslim populations around the world...like, oh,
Russia or China, for example.
Don’t believe me? It’s already happened
with the Taliban, it’s happened to al Qaeda[10].
With ISIS it’s as inevitable as the rising
sun.
Sources:
Copyright B Purkayastha 2015
going on piazza tomorrow when i have day off, thank you in advance
ReplyDelete"For instance, it’s instantly recognisable, and nobody will ever mistake it for any other flag, anywhere."
ReplyDeleteErm, except for the woman watching the Gay Pride parade in England thinking a black flag with white sex toy silhouettes was that flag, yes ;)
On a more serious note, it was remarked a while back that the structure of ISIS was quite similar to a large corporation which explained some of its successes at running its territories. If you examine the hierarchy you can see it. I wonder what Xi or Halliburton are up to these days, they are both into consulting....
ReplyDeleteSorry if this is a duplicate, I couldn't tell if the last post was successful. If it is, just delete it.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI have zero doubts that you are 100% correct in this commentary.
I agree that IF the US of A/NATO/etc. wanted to finish off ISIS it would take at most one week to ten days tops. As you said, why bother? Who wants to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? No sane person for sure, not that the clowns who run the US/NATO/zionist entity ever were sane though. Still, as long as the "defense" contractors/Wally Street/City of London are rolling in huge profits from these damn fool wars of choice, well, let that damn goose keep laying those golden eggs.
I also agree that this IS brand is now damn near as well known/famous as McDonalds/Burger King, KFC/Nike/etc. Hell, no doubt IS is the new Coca-Cola/Pepsi. Or is al-Ciada the old Pepsi? Pepsi being basically watered down Coca-Cola.
The flag is interesting, because it's NOT the canonical shahada. The Shahada says, 'There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his Rasoul.' The Daesh flag says, 'There is no god but Allah, and Allah's Rasoul is Mohammed.'
ReplyDeleteBut it does make it distinctive.
MichaelWme
Patrick Cockburn explains how the Daesh manages to outflank the US, even though it is heavily outgunned and outmanned.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/paris-terror-declaration-of-war-on-isis-will-have-little-effect-if-only-weapons-are-air-strikes-a6737016.html
MichaelWme
I posted a link to this column in response to Cohen's article "The Danger of Placing Your Chips on Beauty" in today's New York Times. Of course, I don't know if it will be approved and actually appear.
ReplyDeleteI watched the finale of "The Hunger Games" yesterday, and the propaganda war between Snow's government and Coin's rebels seems a LOT like the one between the West and the Daesh.
MichaelWme