TheOrganizationofMilitaryViolenceinthe21stcentury

SiniaMaleevi(UniversityCollege,Dublin)
There is a degree of consensus among scholars that the character of warfare has
substantiallychangedoverthepastthreedecades.Theempiricalstudiesindicatethatmost
formsofwarfareareinsteepdeclineandthatcivilwarshavereplacedinterstatewarsas
the dominant form of organised violence in the late modern era. However these findings
have been interpreted very differently. Some scholars argue that the new wars have
becomemorebrutal,lessrestrained,morechaoticanddecentralisedresultinginagreater
numberofciviliancasualties.Thesenewwarsarelinkedtotheglobalisationprocessesand
thegeneralviewisthatastheunrestrainedproliferationofglobalisedeconomyintensifies
so will these new forms of warfare. In contrast other scholars insist that all forms of
organisedviolenceareonthewane.Theymakecasethattherearefewerwarsofallkind,
that warfare in general, including civil wars, have become less lethal, more localised and
shorterthaninprevioushistoricalperiods.Moreovertheyarguethattheveryinstitutionof
warfare is gradually but definitely becoming redundant and that in the near future our
descendants are likely to live in a warfree world. This paper challenges both of these
perspectives and articulates an alternative interpretation. The aim is to develop a longue
dure sociological analysis that focuses on the macro organisational social context and
exploresthedynamicsofthewarstatesocietynexusoverthepastcenturies.Iarguethat
warfareisnotbecomingobsolescentandthatnewwarsareunlikelytocompletelyreplace
interstate warfare. Instead my analysis indicates that there is more organisational
continuity in the contemporary warfare that either of the two dominant perspectives are
willingtoacknowledge.

ManagementistheGate,ButtoWhere?
RethinkingRobertMcNamarasCareerLessons

LeoMcCann
ManchesterBusinessSchool,UniversityofManchester
leo.mccann@mbs.ac.uk

AnhistoricalnarrativeisprovidedonthecareerofRobertS.McNamara,formerPresidentof
Ford,U.S.SecretaryofDefence,andChairmanoftheWorldBank.Basedonathorough
expositionanddeconstructionofhistorical,academicandjournalisticsourcesthepaper
makesthreecontributions.Firstly,itconsiderswhyMcNamaraamajorfigureinthe
disciplinesofhistory,politics,andsecuritystudiesislargelymissingfrommanagement
history,despitebeingonethemosthighprofilemanagersofhisgeneration.Secondlyit
arguesthatwhereMcNamaradoesappearinmanagementliteraturethediscussionhas
beenhistoricallyinadequate;thelimitedmanagementliteratureonMcNamaratypically
makesquestionablestatementsabouthisactionsandapproach,usinghimasalightning
rodtoselectivelydiscreditoutdatedformsofadministrationorbureaucracy.Thirdly,the
papernotesthatmanagementandorganizationshaveinsignificantwaysnotmovedbeyond
McNamarasapproach.Manyofthefundamentalimperativesandconundrumsof
commercial,governmental,andwarmakingorganizationsthatimpactedMcNamarascareer
persisttoday,problematizingideologicalprescriptionsabouttranscendinghislegacy.The
distancingoftodaysbestpracticeleadershipfromthebureaucraticformsof
administrationassociatedwithMcNamarainthe1960sisthereforemorerhetoricalthan
real.

Sustainability:OfMassDestruction
SteffenBhm
UniversityofEssex,steffen@essex.ac.uk

Abstract

SubmittedtotheorganisersoftheworkshopLicenceToKill:TheOrganizationof
Destructioninthe21stCentury,LancasterUniversity,15September2014.

ThetermsustainabilityisderivedfromtheLatinsustinere(tenere,tohold;sus,up).To
sustaincanmeanahostofdifferentthings,butattheheartofitisthemaintenance,
support,enduranceandresilienceofsystems.Inecologyandbiology,sustainabilityisseen
astheabilityofasystemtoremainresilient,whichpredominantlyimpliesthemaintenance
ofbiologicaldiversityandproductivity.Foraforesttobesustainable,forexample,itneeds
tobeabletosupportvarioustreespeciesatvariousheightsandofvariousstructures,
providingahomeforavarietyofanimalspeciesthatperformvariousfunctionstokeepthe
forestresilienttoexternalshocks,suchasweatherchangesandfires,forexample.

Inthe1960sand1970s,thetermsustainabilitystartedtobeincreasinglyusedtoinclude
notonlyecologicalandbiologicalmeanings,butalsosocialandeconomicdimensions.In
conjunctionwiththepoliticalandsocialupheavalsofthattime,arangeofenvironmental
movementsofdifferentpoliticalcoloursemerged,pointingtothecontradictions
betweencapitalslogicofcompoundgrowthontheonehandandplanetarysustainability
andhumanwellbeingontheother.Whatisneeded,theyargued,wasaradicalrethinkof
howwehumansrelatetonatureaswellastoeachother,implyingadifferentconception
andpracticeofeconomy.Economyshouldnotsimplybeaboutkeepingshareholders
happyandmindlesslyfollowingGDPgrowthfigures,but,instead,recuperateitslostsense
oftheoriginalGreekoikonomos,whichisaboutkeepingoneshouseandhouseholdingood
order.HumanityshouseisEarth,andintheageoftheAnthropocenewehumans,through
ourpowerofknowledge,havedevelopedadistinctresponsibilitytokeepourplanethealthy
andingoodorder.

Throughaseriesofkeyeventsinthe1980sand1990s,principallythe1988Brundtland
report,the1992RioEarthSummitandthe1997KyotoProtocol,sustainabilitywasgradually
transformedfromitsearlier,distinctandpoliticallyradical,meaningstosomethingmuch
morevague,openendedandbusinessoriented.Thisdevelopmenthasallowedmost
corporations,particularlythosewithaglobalreachandwithsignificantreputationsrisks
attached,toincorporatesustainabilityintotheirmarketingandoperationaldiscourses
fromtheearly2000sonwards.

Forexample,on20March2014,BAeSystems,theUKsbiggestdefencecompanyand
weaponsmanufacturerwithamarketcapitalizationofaround13bnandover100k
employeesworldwide,publishedits200pageslong2013AnnualReport.Sustainability
3

featuresstronglyinit,forexamplesayingthat:Sustainabilityofourreputationandour
licencetooperateisanintegralpartoftheGroupsbusinessmodel.Itisfocusedon
embeddingresponsiblebusinessbehavioursandplacingemphasisnotjustonwhatthe
Groupdoes,buthowitisdone(p.62).Underthesustainabilityheading,thecompany
featureseverythingfromintegritytothediversityandpersonneldevelopmentofits
workforce,andfromhumanrightsconsiderationstocorporategovernanceandstakeholder
engagement.Fromanenvironmentalpointofview,BAeSystemsgoalistoreducethe
environmentalimpactofitsoperationsandproductsbyusingenergy,waterandwaste
moreefficiently.Ithassystemsinplacethatmonitorandmanageimpactsfrom
greenhousegasemissions,materialandsolventuse,wasteproducts,andemissions
totheatmosphere.Further,environmentalconsiderationsaretakenintoaccount
throughoutaproductslifecyclefromconcept,designandmanufacturethroughto
useanddisposalviatheGroupsLifecycleManagement(LCM)process(p.62).

Thispaperisabouttracingthehistoryofsustainability:fromitsearlyusageofecological
andradicalpoliticalintentinthe1960sand1970stotodaysemptysignifier,whichallows
almostallcorporateorganisationstoclaimapositivecontributiontosustainability
whatevertheirdestructiveimpactonhumanityandtheplanet.Howisit,Iask,that,withina
generation,thepracticesanddiscoursesofsustainabilityhavebecomepartandparcelof
thehegemonicprojectofcorporatesustainability,whichhas,eversincetheemergenceof
capitalin16th/17thcenturyBritain,alwaysbeenaboutsustaininganeconomicmodelthat
privilegesafewthroughthedestructiveexploitationoftherestofhumanityandnature?
And,perhapsmoreimportantly,Ialsoaskhowithasbecomepossiblethatsustainabilityis
nowadaysusedtosustainaneconomicmodelthatisdestructiveonsuchindustrialand
massivescalethattheentireboundariesoftheplanetarysystemarebeingbreached,
endangeringthelifeworldnotonlyforus,butalsofuturegenerations,andofcoursethe
biosphereassuch.Sustainability,itseems,hasbecometheverydriverofmassdestruction
ataplanetaryscale.

ThemethodIemployforthispaperisthatofdestruction,asitwasconceptualizedand
practicedbyWalterBenjamin,theGermanJewishhistorian,philosopherandcritical
theorist,whoseoeuvrewasmainlyproducedduringthe1920s,30sand40s,thetumultuous
yearsofEuropeanandglobaldestructivenessparexcellence.ForBenjamin,destructionisa
dialecticalmethodofjuxtaposingcontradictoryimagesofhistoryinordertoconstruct,what
hecalled,adialecticalimageofnowtime.Suchdialecticalimageshouldilluminatepeople,
givingthemanewinsight,byputtinghithertounrelatedthingsincontacttoeachother.

Iwillcritiqueandextend,perhapsdestruct,Benjaminsmethodbyaskingwhetherhewas
perhapstooconcernedwithhumanhistory,notseeing,andperhapsnotvaluing,thenon
humanenough.Imtalkingofecologyandnature,thoughnotassuminganunspoiltthing
thathumanshavenevermouldedandchanged.Ofcourse,wehumanshavechangednature
eversincewepurposefullystartedfires,constructedshelterandtamedthelandand
animals.Yet,Icontendthatnaturalhistoryworksdifferentlytohumanhistory;along
differentlaws,differentscales,timesandspaces.Thewholeconceptionoftimeandspacein
natureisdifferenttowhatwehumanshaveconstructedforourselves.Thismeansthata
methodofdestructionhastoaccountforsuchdifference.Theimagesitcontrastshaveto
beofdifferentregisters,intensitiesandaffinities.
4


Whyengageinthismethodofdestruction?Tocritiquesustainability,forsure.Toputmy
fingersintowoundsthathurt,askingquestionslike:IsBAeSystemsevergoingtobea
sustainablecompany,orisitinfactacompanythataimstosustainaglobalsystemofmass
destruction?Inaway,theseareobvious,butneverthelessurgent,questions.ButthenI
contendwealsoneedtorecognisethatperhapsthequestionofradicalcritiqueismissing
thepoint.Perhapswedontyethavethelanguageavailabletoaskquestionslike:whatis
sustainability?Whatdoessustainabilitymean?Ifithasanythingtodowithnature,ecology
andthenonhumanplanet,thenhowwedorepresentandevenseethatpartof
sustainability?Shouldweorganizesustainabilityperhapsless,inordertogivenatureand
theplanetabreakfromtheongoingmanagerialonslaughtofhumancentredsustainable
development?Perhapsweneedtodoless,notmore,whichincludescritiquinglessand,
instead,partakeinnatureanditsownsystemdriveforsustainabilityandresilience.

WarandWorkinErnstJngersessayTheWorker:DominionandForm(1932)

BogdanCostea,KostasAmiridis,LancasterUniversity
TheaimofthispaperistoproblematisethetendencytoconstructquasiManichean
dichotomiesinthepolitical,economic,andinstitutionalspheresbetweenwar,destruction,
andarmedcampaigns,ontheonehand,andpeace,production,andthecivilityofnormal
workandbusiness,ontheother.Thethesisthatthe20thand21stCenturieshavegivenrise
tonewformsofwar(e.g.Kaldor1999),withnewcausesandnewmeans,appearstorequire
noeffortfortheimaginationwhatsover.Thequestionforthispaperiswhetherthe
fundamentalclaimthatunderliessuchdichotomieshaschangedatalloverthesetwo
centuries,andwhetherthetransformationofwardoesnotpresentaverydifferentpicture
fromsuchpopularcontrasts.Byreturningtoakeytextpublishedin1932,ErnstJngers
bookTheWorker:DominionandForm,theargumentpresentedhereisthatthevery
attempttoanalysedestructionandtheorganisationofwarrequiressomeconsiderationof
theimpossibilityofdistinguishingitfromproductionitselfastheverycoreofWestern
thinkingoverall.

TheAnnihilationofWorkTheEssenceofPower

LaurenceHemming,Lancaster
Licence to Kill: The Organization of Destruction in the 21st Century, Lancaster 15th
September2014.

SinceFoucaultandthetheoristswhohavefollowedinhiswake,thediscourseofpowerand
itseffectshasbeenallpervasive,andyetalmostnowheredoesFoucaultgiveadefinitionof
power. At the same time Foucault is now widely understood as being indebted to
Nietzschesthought,evenifhewasreluctanttomakeexplicithowtheconnectionbetween
his work and Nietzsches functions. Almost nowhere does Foucault explain how (for him)
poweristobeunderstood.Inararemomentofclarification,Foucaultsaysitisnecessary
to cease always describing the effects of powerin negative terms: itexcludes, it
represses,itputsdown,itcensors,itabstracts,itmasks,itconceals.Infactpower
produces; itproduces the real; it produces domains ofobjects and rituals of truth.The
individualandtheknowledgethatmaybegainedofhimarisefromthisproduction(Michel
Foucault, Surveiller et punir: naissance de la prison (Paris: Gallimard, 1975, p. 196, my
translation).Foucaultsunderstandingofpowerturnsouttobetheinheritorofatradition
of the understanding of power that runs from Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Marx that is
essentiallyproductiveandupbuilding:powerisessentiallyconstructive,itletsgood,and
then better things happen. The (Foucauldian) critique of power is for the sake of that
betterment.

What stands behind Foucaults, but Marxs and especially Hegels, idea of power is an
essentialunderstanding,ultimatelytraceabletoAristotle,ofthemeaningofwork(),
butunderstoodthroughAristotlescategoryfortheunderstandingoftheentiretyofbeing
aseverythingthatstandsforthinhavingbeingworked,asenergeia(i).Itisinthis
sense that we could argue that Foucault takes over Nietzsches understanding of will to
power, as will to produce. Overpowering, as empowering: productively advancing
towardthefulfilmentofthefuture.

Instarkcontrasttothisbetteringofpowerstandstheunderstandingthatwasgivenstark
shape and form by a very different reading of Nietzsche, in the person of Ernst Jnger.
Takingupaphrasein1930alsousedbyLenin,totalmobilisation,anddevelopingitfurther
in his 1932 work The Worker: Dominion and Form, Jnger announces the figure of the
workerfromoutofhisexperiencenotonlyoftheessentiallyconstructivecapacityofwork,
but above all his experience of war, especially as a frontline footsoldier of World War I.
Jngers form of the worker, every bit as much an antibourgeois figure as Marxs, and
every bit as revolutionary a force, but is nevertheless an instrument of the destructive
stormsofsteelsweepingthefaceoftheearth(thetitleofthepublicformofJngerswar
6

diaries)thatshowstheextenttowhichworkandpowerarealsoessentiallyannihilatingas
wellasconstructiveforces,ofanimpersonalpowerthatisinthecontrolofnoonewill,but
thatunleashesadestructivewillacrosstheglobe.

AfundamentalinsightofJngersdescriptionoftheexistenceandactivityoftheworkeris
that, as the organising, and so driving, form of the work that is to be done, the workers
workofdestructionandannihilationimposesorderandstructureontheactivitywemight
saytheworkofundoingthattheworkerleadsandenforces.Annihilationisnotanarchic,
even as it can be (and can employ) explosive: on the contrary, work as undoing imposes
hierarchyandorder,itrecruitsvastnumbersintoitsranksanditmechanises,systematises
andmarshalsitsforcesofconstructionanddestructiononanalmostunimaginablescale.In
this, the question of which is to the fore, which is first construction; or destruction is
posed:andansweredonlyinthateveryconstructivesettingtoworkisattheverysamean
unleashingofdestruction,ofanannihilativeforceandpower.

Jngers worker opens up many questions that at present still lie open for us, even as
formsofworkandtheformswhichpowertasksonhavemigratedandbeenbroughtunder
control in the aftermath of the Second world War. The essence of this migration and
containment is still driven towards notions of betterment and progress, so that its
annihilative aspect lays unthematised and unexplored, except as a melancholy or in the
spectreofterror,aterrorwhichmustalwaysbeovercomeevenasitfailstobeexplained.

MartinHeideggerscommentariesonJngersworkTheWorker(seezuErnstJnger,vol.
90 of Martin Heideggers collected works or Gesamtausgabe), and its relation to
Nietzsches notion of the will to power, written in the eye of the developing storm of
19391945,emphasisetheextenttowhichnotconstructionbutannihilationistheessence
ofthewilltopowerinawaythatJngercouldonlygesturetowardbutcouldnotthematise.
The last part of this paper looks at Heideggers commentary in some detail, to show the
extent to which it opens up contemporary questions of work and power as destructive
forcesinthecomingcentury.InthisweturntofaceHeideggersnotionoftheAbendland,
thelandoftheevening,ofeclipseandafallingintodarknessasthemostgenuinenameof
TheWestandthereachofWesternideasnowacrossthewholeofthefaceoftheearth.
DoesthisHesperianlandoftheeveningpointtoamoredramaticredemptioninthelight
of a dawn hoped for, or yet to come? Or is the downgoing into destructive night the
essence itself of the Western experience of being? Can we decide? Or is this what is
decisiveforus?

DiscipliningDestruction:ConfiguringtheOtherintrainingsimulation

LucySuchman,LancasterUniversity,UK
InKillingWithoutHeart(2013),AirForceColonelM.ShaneRizareflectsondecisionsnotto
killwithinsituationsofwarfighting.Hebeginsfromwhathecharacterizesastheimpunities
oftrainingsimulations,whichallowtraineestobecomesupremelycapablepractitionersof
ourcraftwithouthavingtoconsiderthedeepermoralquestions(2013:31).WhileRiza
directsourattentiontothecutsenactedthroughsimulation,however,hisaccounttroubles
anyunequivocaldifferencebetweenthevirtualandthereal.Rizasreflectionspointtothe
complexrelationsofmediationandembodiment,distanceandproximity,vulnerabilityand
impunitythatcomprisecontemporaryconfigurationsofwarfare,asthevirtualisinfused
withrealfigurationsandhasitsownmaterialeffects,andtherealenvironmentsofwar
fightingareincreasinglyvirtual.Thispapertakesuptheproblematicofreal/virtualaspartof
awiderprojecttounderstandtheinterfacesthatconfigureU.S.warfighting,beginningwith
thearchiveofFlatworld,animmersivetrainingenvironmentdevelopedbetween2001
and2008astheflagshipprojectoftheUniversityofSouthernCalifornia'sInstitutefor
CreativeTechnologies.IreadtheprojectthroughaframeinspiredbyJudithButler's
theoreticalanalysisoffigurationsgenerativeagencies,totrytoarticulatefurtherthe
trainingsimulationsdiscursiveandmaterialeffects.