war is not just an event

7/22/2019 War is not Just an Event

1/17

Hypatia Inc.

War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday ViolenceAuthor(s): Chris J. CuomoSource: Hypatia, Vol. 11, No. 4, Women and Violence (Autumn, 1996), pp. 30-45Published by: Wileyon behalf of Hypatia, Inc.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810390.Accessed: 30/01/2014 23:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Hypatia, Inc.and Wileyare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHypatia.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.190.23.17 on Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:30:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hypatiainchttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3810390?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3810390?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hypatiainchttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/17

WarIsNot JustanEvent:Reflections n theSignificance fEveryday iolenceCHRISJ. CUOMO

Althoughmy positions inbasicagreement ith henotion hatwarandmilitarismarefeminist ssues,I argue hatapproacheso theethicsof war andpeacewhichdonot consider peacetime ilitary iolence reinadequateorfeministandenviron-mentalistconcerns.Becausemuchof the militaryviolencedone to women andecosystems appens utside heboundariesf declaredwars,feministandenviron-mentalphilosophersughtoemphasizehesignificancefeverydaymilitary iolence.

Philosophicalattention to war has typicallyappearedn the form of justifi-cations for enteringnto war,and over appropriate ctivities withinwar.Thespatialmetaphorsusedto refer to war as a separate,boundedsphereindicateassumptionshat war s a realmof humanactivityvastlyremovedfromnormallife, or a sortof happeningthat isappropriatelyonceivedapart romeverydayevents in peacefultimes. Not surprisingly,mostdiscussionsof the politicalandethical dimensionsof war discuss warsolely as an event-an occurrence,orcollection of occurrences,having clearbeginningsand endingsthat aretypi-cally markedby formal,institutional declarations.As happenings,wars andmilitaryactivities can be seen as motivatedby identifiable, f complex, inten-tions, and directlyenacted by individualand collective decision-makersandagents of states. But manyof the questionsaboutwar that are of interesttofeminists-including how large-scale, tate-sponsored iolence affectswomenand membersof other oppressedgroups;how militaryviolence shapes gen-dered,raced,and nationalisticpoliticalrealitiesand moral maginations;whatsuch violence consists of and why it persists;how it is related to otheroppressiveand violent institutions and hegemonies-cannot be adequatelypursuedby focusingon events. These issuesare not merelya matterof good orbad intentions and identifiabledecisions.Hypatiavol. 11, no. 4 (Fall 1996) ? byChrisJ. Cuomo

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

ChrisJ.Cuomo

In Genderand 'Postmoder' War, Robin Schott introducessome of theways in which war is currentlybest seen not as an event but as a presence(Schott 1995). Schott arguesthat postmodem understandingsof persons,states, and politics, as well as the high-tech nature of much contemporarywarfareand the preponderance f civil and nationalistwars,renderan event-basedconception of warinadequate,especiallyinsofarasgenderis taken intoaccount. In this essay, I will expand upon her argumentby showing thataccounts of war that only focus on events are impoverished n a number ofways,and therefore eministconsiderationof the political, ethical, and onto-logical dimensions of warand the possibilitiesforresistancedemand a muchmorecomplicatedapproach. take Schott'scharacterizationfwaraspresenceas a point of departure,though I am not committed to the idea that theconstancyofmilitarism, he fact of itsomnipresencen humanexperience,andthe paucityof an event-based account of war are exclusive to contemporarypostmodernorpostcolonialcircumstances.1

Theory that does not investigate or even notice the omnipresenceofmilitarismcannot representor address he depth and specificityof the every-dayeffects of militarismon women,on peopleliving in occupiedterritories, nmembersof militaryinstitutions,and on the environment. These effects arerelevant to feminists in a number of ways because military practices andinstitutionshelp constructgenderedand national identity,and becausetheyjustifythe destructionof naturalnonhuman entities and communitiesduringpeacetime. Lack of attention to these aspects of the business of makingorpreventingmilitaryviolence in an extremelytechnologizedworldresults intheorythat cannot accommodatethe connections amongthe constantpres-ence of militarism,declaredwars,andothercloselyrelatedsocialphenomena,such as nationalisticglorificationsof motherhood,mediaviolence, and currentideologicalgravitations o militarysolutions forsocialproblems.Ethical approaches hat do not attend to the ways in which warfareandmilitarypracticesare woven into the veryfabricof life in twenty-firstcenturytechnologicalstates lead to crisis-based oliticsandanalyses.Foranyfeminismthat aims to resist oppressionand create alternative social and politicaloptions, crisis-based thics and politics areproblematicbecausethey distractattention fromthe needforsustainedresistance o the enmeshed,omnipresentsystemsof domination andoppression hat so often function asgivens in mostpeople's ives.Neglectingthe omnipresenceof militarismallowsthe falsebeliefthat the absence of declaredarmedconflicts ispeace,the polaroppositeofwar.It isparticularlyasyforthose whose lives areshapedbythe safetyof privilege,and who donot regularly ncounterthe realitiesofmilitarism, o maintainthisfalse belief. The belief that militarism is an ethical, political concern onlyregardingarmedconflict, creates forms of resistance to militarism that aremerelyexercises in crisiscontrol. Antiwarresistanceis then mobilizedwhenthe real iolence finallyoccurs,or when the stabilityof privilegeis directly

31



4/17

Hypatia

threatened,and at that point it is difficult not to respond n waysthat makeresistersdropall other political priorities.Crisis-drivenattention to declara-tions of warmight actuallykeep resisterscomplacentabout andcomplicitousin the generalpresenceof globalmilitarism.Seeing war asnecessarilyembed-ded in constant militarypresence draws attention to the fact that horrific,state-sponsored iolence is happeningnearlyall over,all of the time,and thatit is perpetratedby militaryinstitutions and other militaristicagentsof thestate.

Moving awayfromcrisis-drivenpoliticsandontologies concerningwarandmilitaryviolence alsoenables considerationof relationshipsamong seeminglydisparatephenomena,and thereforecan shapemore nuancedtheoreticalandpractical ormsof resistance.Forexample, investigating he ways n which warispartof apresenceallows considerationof the relationshipsamongthe eventsof warandthe following:how militarism s a foundational ropein the socialand political imagination;how the pervasive presence and symbolismofsoldiers/warriors/patriotshapemeaningsof gender; he waysin which threatsof state-sponsored iolence are a sometimesinvisible/sometimesboldagent ofracism,nationalism, and corporateinterests;the fact that vast numbersofcommunities,cities, and nations are currently n the midst of excruciatinglyviolent circumstances. t alsoprovidesa lens forconsidering he relationshipsamong the various kinds of violence that get labeled war. Given currentAmerican obsessionswithnationalism,guns,andmilitias,andgrowinghungerfor the death penalty,prisons,and a morepowerfulpolice state, one cannotunderestimate he need for philosophicaland political attention to connec-tions among phenomena like the waron drugs, he waron crime, andother state-fundedmilitaristiccampaigns.Ipropose hat the constancyof militarismand its effectson socialrealitybereintroducedas a crucial locus of contemporaryeministattentions,and thatfeministsemphasizehow warsareeruptionsand manifestationsofomnipresentmilitarism hat is a productand tool of multiply oppressive,corporate, ech-nocratic states.2Feministsshouldbe particularlynterested n making his shiftbecauseit better allowsconsiderationof the effectsof warand militarismonwomen,subjugatedpeoples,andenvironments.While givingattentionto theconstancyof militarism n contemporaryife we need not neglect the impor-tanceofaddressinghe specificqualitiesofdirect,large-scale,declaredmilitaryconflicts. But the dramaticnatureof declared, arge-scaleconflictsshould notobfuscate the ways in which military violence pervadesmost societies inincreasingly echnologically sophisticatedwaysand the significanceof mili-taryinstitutions and everydaypracticesin shaping reality.Philosophicaldis-cussionsthat focusonly on the ethics of declaringandfightingwarsmisstheseconnections, and also missthe waysin which even declaredmilitaryconflictsare often experienced as omnipresenthorrors.These approachesalso leave

32



5/17

ChrisJ.Cuomo

unquestionedtendenciesto suspendor distort moraljudgement n the face ofwhat appears o be the inevitabilityof war and militarism.Just-war heory is a prominent example of a philosophical approachthatrestson the assumption hat wars are isolated fromeveryday ife and ethics.Such theory, as developed by St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and HugoGrotius,and as articulated n contemporarydialoguesby manyphilosophers,includingMichael Walzer 1977), ThomasNagel (1974), and Sheldon Cohen(1989), takethe primary uestionconcerningthe ethics of warfareo be aboutwhen to enter into militaryconflictsagainstother states.They therefore akeas a given the notion that war is an isolated, definable event with clearboundaries. These boundaries are significant because they distinguish thecircumstances n which standardmoral rules and constraints,such as rulesagainst murderand unprovokedviolence, no longer apply.Just-war heoryassumes hat war is a separate phereof humanactivityhaving its own ethicalconstraintsand criteriaand in doingso it begsthe questionof whether or notwar is a special kind of event, or part of a pervasivepresencein nearlyallcontemporaryife.Becausethe applicationof just-warprinciples s a matterof properdecision-makingon the partof agentsof the state,beforewarsoccur,andbeforemilitarystrikesare made, they assumethat militaryinitiatives are distinct events. Infact, declarationsof war aregenerallyoverdetermined scalationsof preexist-ing conditions. Just-warcriteria cannot help evaluate militaryand relatedinstitutions, including their peacetime practices and how these relate towartimeactivities, so they cannot address he waysin which armedconflictsbetween and among states emerge from omnipresent,often violent, statemilitarism.The remarkable esemblances n some sectors between states ofpeace andstatesof warremaincompletelyuntouchedbytheories that areonlyable to discuss the ethics of starting and ending direct military conflictsbetween and amongstates.

Applicationsof just-warcriteriaactuallyhelp create the illusion that theproblemof war is being addressedwhen the only considerations are theethics of declaringwars and of militaryviolence within the boundariesofdeclarationsof war andpeace. Thoughjust-war onsiderationsmighttheoret-

ically help decision-makers voidspecific grosseruptionsof militaryviolence,the aspectsof warwhichrequire he underlyingpresenceof militarismand thedirect effects of the omnipresenceof militarism emainuntouched.Theremaybe importantdecisions to be made aboutwhen andhow to fightwar,but thesemust be consideredin termsof the manyother aspectsof contemporarywarandmilitarism hat aresignificant o nonmilitarypersonnel, ncludingwomenand nonhumans.

33



6/17

Hypatia

FEMINIST PPROACHES O WAR AND MILITARYIOLENCEIn a recentHypatiaarticle,LucindaPeachargues hatjust-war heory,whichshe takes to be more realistic and usefulthan pacifism,can be strengthenedwith feminist insightsand analyses.Drawingprimarilyon the workof SaraRuddick and Jean Bethke Elshtain, she reconstructs feminist responsestotraditionaljust-warapproaches,and illustrateshow a more thorough appli-cation of feminist principles might lead to a more carefuland consideredappraisalof when the use of armed force is morallyjustified (Peach 1994,

167). Though she agrees with their criticisms of traditional just-warapproaches,Peach finds Elshtain's and Ruddick's alternatives practicallyand theoretically lacking. Nonetheless, her'faith in just-wartheorizing isunwavering:The feminist criticisms discusseddo not suggest a need todevelop radically new or different criteria for assessingthemoralityorengagement n armedconflict fromthose offeredbytraditional ust-war heory... feminist criticismsandcounter-proposalssuggesta number of specific proposals ormodifyingthe practicemorethan the theoryof the just-warapproach oarmedconflict. (Peach 1994, 164)

Peach states that one of the problemswith nonfeministcritiquesof waristheirfailure o address he fact that womenremain argelyabsentfromethicaland policy debates regardingwhen to go to war,how to fight a war, andwhether resortingto war is morally justifiable (Peach 1994, 152). But ajust-warapproachcannot successfully heorize women'sroles in these eventsbecause formal,declared warsdepend upon underlyingmilitaristicassump-tions andconstructionsof genderthat make women'sparticipationas leadersnearlyimpossible.The limitations of Peach'sanalysismake clear some aspectsof the relation-ships between peacetime militarism and armed conflicts that cannot beaddressedby even feminist just-warprinciples.Her five criticismsof just-wartheory,discussedbelow,are intended to both echo and reviseappraisalsmadeby other feminists. But each fails to successfullyaddressthe complexity offeministconcerns.

1) Peach finds just-wartheory'sreliance on realism, the notion thathuman nature makes war inevitable and unavoidable,to be problem-atic. She believes just-wartheory should not be premisedon realistassumptions, and that it should also avoid unduly unrealisticappraisals f human and femalenature,as foundin Ruddick'swork.Peach rightlyidentifies the pessimism,sexism,essentialism,anduniversal-ismat work in just-war heorists'conceptionsof human nature.Nonetheless,

34



7/17

ChrisJ.Cuomo

she fails to see thatjust-war heoristsemployossifiedconceptsof both humannature and war. Any interrogationof the relationshipsbetween war andhumannature, or morebenignly, understandings nd enactments of whatit means to be diverse human agents in various contexts, will be terriblylimited insofar as they consider wars to be isolated events. Questionsconcerning the relationshipsbetween war and human nature become farmore complex if we reject a conception of war that focusesonly on events,and abandonany pretense of arrivingat universalistconceptions of humanor female nature.

Feministethicalquestionsabout warare not reducible o wonderinghow toavoid large-scalemilitaryconflict despitehuman tendencies towardviolence.Instead,the central questionsconcern the omnipresenceof militarism,thepossibilitiesof makingits presencevisible, and the potentialfor resistancetoits physical and hegemonic force. Like solutions o the preponderanceofviolence perpetratedbymen againstwomen that fail to analyzeand articulaterelationshipsbetween everydayviolence and institutionalized or invisiblesystemsof patriarchal, acist,and economic oppression,analysesthat charac-terizeeruptionsof militaryviolence as isolated,persistentevents, arepracti-cally andtheoreticallyinsufficient.

2) Peach faults ust-war heory or its failure o consideralternatives o war,stating hat the ailure f mostjust-warheorists o seriously ontemplatealternatives o war s... radically eficient rom heperspectivesfpacifistfeminist and othersopposedto knee-jerkmilitaristicresponseto civilstrife (Peach 1994, 158). She argues hat feministjust-war heorists,includingElshtain, houldalsopaymoreattentionto pacifistarguments.When Peach discusses alternativesto war, she is clearly referringtoalternativesto entering into war, or to participatingin the escalation ofconflicts. The avoidance of eruptionsof militaryviolence is certainly impor-tant,and Peach iscorrectthat feministinsightsaboutconflict resolutioncouldpresentsignificantrecommendations n this regard.However,feminist moralimaginationcannot end there. In thinkingof alternatives o war,we need tocontinue to imaginealternativesto militaristiceconomies,symbolic systems,

values,andpolitical institutions.The taskof constructingsuch alternatives sfarmoredauntingand comprehensivethan creatingalternatives o a specificevent or kind of event.Pacifist writersas diverse as Gandhi, MartinLutherKing,Jr.,and BarbaraDeminghave emphasizedhe fact thatpacifismentailsa critiqueofpervasive,systematichumanviolence. Despiteits reductionist endencies,there is muchto learnfrom the waysin which pacifistsconceive of war as apresence,as wellas the pacifistrefusal o let go of the ideal of peace.Characterizing acifismas

motivatedbythe desireto avoidspecificeventsdisregardshe extent to whichpacifismaims to criticize the preconditionsunderlyingevents of war.

35



8/17

Hypatia

3) Following several influential moves in feminist philosophy, Peachrejects just-wartheory'sreliance on abstraction-of the realities, orhorrors, f war;of enemies asone-dimensionalevil, killableOthers;andof the ethicalresponsesneeded to addresshe moralityof war,suchas a privilegingof justice and rightsover love and caring.FollowingElshtain,she believes that feministjust-warprinciplesshould be moreparticularized,ontextualized,and individualized.

But the abstractionof the particularities f wardependson an abstractionof war itself. The distance of such abstraction s createdin partby willingnessto think of war without consideringthe presenceof warin peaceful imes.Warsbecomes conceptual entities-objects for consideration-rather thandiverse, historicallyloaded exemplificationsof the contexts in which theyoccur.Inorder o notice the particular ndindividualrealitiesofwar,attentionmust be given to the particular, ndividual,and contextualizedcauses andeffectsof pervasivemilitarism,as well as the patternsand connections amongthem.

4) Like other feminists, Peach criticizesthe dualismsand dichotomiesthat underliewarand the other evils of patriarchy,ncludingdichotomies between male and female, combatantand non-combatant,soldierand citizen, ally and enemy and state andindividual which have dominatedjust-war thinking. Ratherthan relyingon traditionaldichotomies,a feministapplicationof just-war riteriashouldemphasize he effectsof goingto waron the lives of particularndividualswho would be involved,whether soldier or civilian, enemy or ally, male or female.(Peach 1994, 166)

As shouldnow be obvious,thoughPeach rejectsseveral relevantdualistichierarchies,a starkontological distinction between war and peace remainsbasically ntact.3Thus Peach'srejectionof dualisms s underminedbyher ownfailureto questiona starkontologicaldistinctionbetween war andpeace. Inconsideringthe ways in which violence shapeswomen'srealities,feministsmight be better servedby analysesof war as partof enmeshed continua orspectraof state-sponsored nd othersystemicpatriarchal nd racistviolence.

5) Peach believesjust-war heoryprivilegesstateauthorityand the goodof the state over individual autonomy and well-being. Instead, shestates that just-wartheoryshould include reformulated nderstand-ingsof the properrelationshipsbetween the individualand the state,considering both the impact of war on individualsas well as theobligations of both men and women to defend the nation (Peach1994, 167).

36



9/17

ChrisJ.Cuomo

In raisingquestionsaboutthe relationshipsbetween individualsandstates,Peach fails to questionliberal,modernistconceptionsof either.Butif individ-ual personsaresociallyconstituted,often in conflictingways,how can mem-bership,orappropriateoyalties,bedetermined? f the state isalways nevitablya military,patriarchal,raciststate, how ought alternativecollectivities thatwill promotethe well-beingof individualsbe conceived without creatingorrelyingon militarypresence?Feministsconcernedwith resistances o warneedto consider how the pervasivenessof militarismin the constructionof thecontemporarytate impliesthe need to questionnationalismwhen theorizingcriticallyabout war.Togive one veryclearexampleof the waysin which just-war valuationsofwarsasevents fail to address eministquestionsaboutmilitarism, onsiderthewidespreadnfluence of foreign militarybases on genderednational identitiesand interactions. In Bananas,Beachesand Bases:MakingFeministSenseofInternational olitics(1990), Cynthia Enloe illustrateshow, while decision-makingand economicpowerareheldprimarily ymen, internationalrelationsand politics are inevitably played out on women's bodies in myriad ways,propagating acist,nationalist,and colonialistconceptionsof femininity.Onechapter, BaseWomen, s devoted to a discussionof the waysin which localandglobalsexualpoliticsshapeand areshapedthrough he constantpresenceof thousandsof militarybasesworldwide-in the symbolof the soldier,theintroductionof foreign conceptionsof masculinityandfemininity,the repro-ductionof familystructures n militarybases,andthroughsystemsof prostitu-tion that universallycoexist alongsidemilitarybases.Enloe writes, militarypolitics, which occupysuch a largepartof interna-tionalpoliticstoday,requiremilitarybases.Basesare artificial ocieties createdout of unequal relations between men and women of different races andclasses and,one mightadd,differentnations (Enloe 1990, 2). The constant,global presenceof these bases is an exampleof the mundanegivennessandsubtleomnipresenceof militaryviolence.

Most bases have managedto slip into the daily lives of thenearbycommunity.A militarybase, even one controlled bysoldiersof anothercountry,can become politicallyinvisible ifitswaysof doingbusinessandseeingthe world insinuatethem-selves into a community'sschools, consumertastes, housingpatterns, children'sgames, adults' friendships,jobs and gos-sip.... Most have drapedthemselveswith the camouflageofnormalcy.. .. Rumors of a base closing can send shivers ofeconomic alarmthrougha civilian communitythat has cometo dependon basejobsandsoldiers' pending.(Enloe 1990, 66)Just-war heory-even feminist just-wartheory-cannot bring to light theways in which the politics of militarybases arerelatedto the wagingof war,

37



10/17

Hypatia

how militarismconstructsmasculinityand femininity,or how internationalpolitics areshapedby the microcosmic mpactsof militarybases.It thereforecannot address ome of the most pressingways in which militarismand warinvolve and affectwomen.

JUSTWAR AND ENVIRONMENTALTHICSI turn now to a discussionof the environmental effects of war,because Ibelieve theseeffectsto be significant o feminists or twobasicreasons.Though

women are no more essentiallyconnected to nature than any other organicbeings,culturalconstructionsassociatewomen withnatureandhelpjustify hemistreatmentof both. Manyfeministsandecologicalfeministshave discussedthese problematicconceptualconnections ascreatedor fueledby the dichot-omous thinking discussed above (Griffin 1989; King 1990; Warren 1990;Cuomo 1992;Plumwood1993). Others, includingVandanaShiva and MariaMies(1993), focuson the practical,or materialconnections between environ-mental degradation and women's oppression. In any case, if women'soppression is connected to the unjustified destruction of nature, or if, asKaren Warren argues, feminists must be against oppression in any form,including the oppressionof nature, it is arguablethat the ecological effectsof war and militarism are feminist issues. Because military ecologicaldestruction occurs primarily during peacetime, and because it is sodirectly tied to other formsof ecological and social violence, attention tothe ecological impacts of war further illustrates the limitations of onlythinking of war in termsof events.

In TheMilitaryCommander'sResponsibilityor the Environment, MerritDrucker,a majorin the U.S. Armyand philosophyinstructorat the UnitedStates Military Academy at West Point, utilizes an expandedapplicationofjust-warprinciples o argue hat militarycommanders ughtto protectnaturalenvironmentsduringpeace and warfare.The commander's eacetimerespon-sibilities

arefoundedon the commander'sprofessionalresponsibilityasan agent of the state. Wartimeresponsibilities tem fromthewell-establishedprohibitionsagainst harmingnoncombatantsand destroyingworksof art andobjectsof historical orculturalvalue. (Drucker1989, 136)Drucker's nalysisrestsprimarily n a sharpdistinctionbetween peace andwar, and a broad interpretationof the just-warprincipleof noncombatantimmunity.Thisprinciplerequiresmilitarydiscriminationbetween combatantsand noncombatantsand states that it isjustifiable o intentionallykill only the

former. n essence,Druckerbelievesmilitarycommanders ughtto protecttheenvironmentduringwarbecause,like noncombatants and culturalartifacts,

38



11/17

ChrisJ.Cuomo

naturalentities areinherentlyvaluable,morally nappropriateargetsof mili-tary aggression.Druckerargues romanalogythat because theenvironment(which he representsas a unified,self-evidententity) is freeof intention andcannot wage or fight in war,it is an innocent noncombatant in the realmofhumanaffairs. f a just-warmustbe foughtwithout intended or excessiveharmto noncombatants, usticerequires hat warsalso be foughtwithout intendedor excessive harmto environments.Infact,he believesrestraints duenot onlybecause of nature's ack of intention, but also because of its functions:

The environmentis remarkablyike a special groupof soldierswho are considered to be noncombatants.Just as [medicalpersonnelandreligiousprofessionals] rotectand foster ife,theenvironment, if treatedproperly,makespossibleand sustainslife in the most basic way imaginable . . . [and] should beaccorded the considerations we grant human nurturersandhealers.(Drucker1989, 147)

Despite his characterizationof the rule of noncombatant immunityas anestablishedpartof ourmoraltraditionandinternational aw, Druckerhimselfadmitsthat it is often violated (1989, 146).Drucker'sargumentpresupposes he just-warprincipleof proportionality,which requires hat the benefitsof goingto war,and of particular trategiesormissions within war,must outweigh its harms. The proportionalityrequire-ment, like a principle of utility, allows him to consider ecological damagewithout necessarilytaking an absolutist stance against any militaryactivitythat results n ecologicalharm or manipulation.In otherwords,proportional-ity enables a step back from strict observance of noncombatantimmunity.Druckerconcludes that militaryecological damage (damageto nonhumannoncombatants)must be weighed as one of a number of significantfactorsdeterminingthe justifiabilityof a militaryaction, but that it is ultimatelyallowable and reasonable o causedamageto the environment in the serviceof justends.Summinguphis position,he writes:

Ifwe acceptthe view that the environment and its inhabitantsall have inherentworth,then we need to give genuineconsid-eration to the well-beingof all-plants, animals,and persons.In additionto exercisingdue care I think commanders houldtake at least minimal riskswith their soldiers' ives to protectthe environment.(Drucker1989, 151)Like Peach, Druckerbelieves that amendedjust-warcriteriaareadequatetocriticallyassessthe ethicsof war.A telling aspectof Drucker's rgument s his illustrationof environmentallysound warfare,which I'll quote extensively to provide a sense of his goalsconcerning military mpacton the environment:

39



12/17

Hypatia

The German army in World War II serves as an excellenthistoricalprecedent for the compatibilityof highly effectivetrainingand realprotectionof the environment.The Germansusedgarrison rainingareasneartowns for as much individualtrainingas possible.Their largertrainingareas,used for unitmaneuvers,werecarefullymanaged.They wereusually ocatedon land unsuitableforagriculture; owever,much of the landhad to be cultivatedto preventfoodshortages.These cultivatedareashelped make the trainingmore realistic.... Large rain-ing exercises were held in the fall to prevent damageto cropsand soil erosion.Becausethey wereforcedto traina verylargearmy in a very small area, the Germans developed trainingmethods which weregentle on the land. (Drucker1989, 142)

Druckercompletelyabstracts pecificmartialdecisions and events fromotheraspectsof the Nazimilitarycampaign n WorldWarII, including tsunderlyingxenophobic,hypemationalist,and imperialist ore.He therefore ees Germanmilitarypracticesasenvironmentalist, ather han aspragmatic, ogicalexten-sions of a near-religiousglorificationof the Fatherland, mplementedby anefficient andextraordinarily estructivemilitary.Butthinkingof warthroughenvironmentalethics is not a matterof conceiving of militarypracticesthatare less destructive to a nation's own land and economy. How does theblitzkrieg it into the ethos Druckerdescribesabove?Drucker's solation of Germanmilitarydecisionsand events in his ethicalassessments enabledbythe completeabstractionof these decisionsfromtheircontexts, and the waysin which they wereshapedby pervasiveNazi milita-rism.An obviousdangerof this approach o the ethics of waris the fact thatone can argue avorably orecologicallysound warfare-clean wars-withoutattention to the connections amongthe technologiesof war,the motivationsfor war, and the social contexts of war. Connections between Nazienvironmentalism, and contemporaneous German implementation ofeugenic and population-controlmeasures hat includedgenocideshould notbe passedover lightly in efforts to construct an environmental ethic thatpromotesthe flourishingof human,as well asnonhuman,life.Drucker'sview depends on sharpdistinctions:between combatants andnoncombatants,between war and peace. But both human and nonhumannoncombatants are alwaysharmedor otherwise affectedby militarism,evenwhen they are not directlyharmedin battles. This simpletruthwascapturedin apopularVietnam Warera antiwarposterthatread, Wars not healthyforchildrenand other living things. Becausenaturalnoncombatantsareevery-where;theirdestruction is necessary or war and forthe existence of militaryinstitutions,even when wars are not explicitly being fought.The ecologicalrealitiesof war,andof whatit takes to bepreparedor war n the contemporary

40



13/17

ChrisJ.Cuomo

world,aremind-boggling.To take natureat all seriously ntailsacknowledgingthe effects of combat as well as the severe harm causedby everydaymilitarypractices.

THEECOLOGICALMPACTSFWARIn ScorchedEarth: The Military'sAssault on the Environment,WilliamThomas, a U.S. Navy veteran, illustrates he extent to which the peacetime

practicesof military nstitutionsdamagenaturalenvironmentsand communi-ties. Thomas argues hat even peace entails a dramaticand widespreadwaron nature,or asJoni Seagerputs it, The environmentalcosts of militarizedpeacebearsuspiciousresemblance o the costs of war Thomas 1995, xi).All told, including peacetimeactivitiesas well as the immense destructioncausedby combat, militaryinstitutionsprobablypresent the most dramaticthreat to ecological well-being on the planet. The military is the largestgeneratorof hazardouswaste in the United States, creatingnearlya ton oftoxic pollution every minute, and military analystJillian Skeel claims that,Globalmilitaryactivitymaybe the largestworldwidepolluterand consumerof preciousresources quotedin Thomas1995, 5). A conventionally poweredaircraftcarrierconsumes150,000 gallonsof fuel a day.In less than an hour'sflight, a single jet launched from its flight deck consumes as much fuel as aNorth American motorist bums in two years.One F-16 jet engine requiresnearlyfour and a half tons of scarcetitanium, nickel, chromium,cobalt, andenergy-intensivealuminum Thomas1995,5), and nine percentof all the ironand steel usedby humans is consumedby the global military(Thomas 1995,16). The United States Departmentof Defense generates500,000 tons oftoxins annually,more than the world'sopfive chemicalcompaniescombined.The militaryis the biggest single source of environmentalpollution in theUnited States. Of 338 citations issuedby the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency in 1989, three-quarterswent to military installations(Thomas 1995, 17).The feminization,commodification,anddevaluationof naturehelpscreatea realityin which its destruction n warfares easilyjustified.In imagininganethic that addresses hese realities, feminists cannot neglect the extent towhich militaryecocide is connected, conceptuallyandpractically, o transna-tional capitalism and other forms of human oppressionand exploitation.Virtuallyall of the world's hirty-fivenuclearbomb test sites, as well as mostradioactivedumpsand uraniummines, occupyNative lands (Thomas 1995,6). Six multinationalscontrol one-quarterof all United States defense con-tracts(Thomas 1995, 10), and two million dollarsperminute is spenton theglobal military(Thomas 1995, 7). One could go on for volumes about theeffects of chemical and nuclear testing, military-industrial evelopmentand

41



14/17

Hypatia

waste,andthe disruptionof wildlife,habitats,communities,andlifestyles hatareinescapably inked to militarypractices.There are many conceptual and practicalconnections between militarypractices n which humans aim to kill and harmeach otherforsome declaredgreatergood, and nonmilitarypracticesin which we displace, destroy,orseriouslymodifynonhumancommunities,species,andecosystems n the nameof human interests.An early illustrationof these connections was made byRachel Carsonin the first few pagesof TheSilentSpring1962), in which shedescribed nsecticides as the inadvertentoffspringof WorldWarII chemicalweaponsresearch.We can now also tracewaysin which insecticideswerepartof the Western-defined lobalcorporatizationf agriculturehathelpedkill offthe small family farm and made the worldwidesystem of food productiondependenton the likes of Dow Chemical and Monsanto.

Militarypracticesare no different romother humanpractices hat damageand irreparablymodifynature.They are often a resultof cost-benefitanalysesthat pretend to weigh all likely outcomes yet do not consider nonhumanentities except in terms of their use value forhumans and they nearly alwayscreate unforeseeable ffectsfor humansand nonhumans.Inaddition,everydaymilitarypeacetime practicesare actuallymore destructive than most otherhuman activities, they aredirectlyenacted by state power,and,becausetheyfunction as unquestioned givens, they enjoy a unique near-immunitytoenactments of moralreproach. t isworthnoting the extent to whicheverydaymilitaryactivities remain largelyunscrutinizedby environmentalists,espe-cially Americanenvironmentalists,argelybecausefear allows us to be fooledinto thinking that nationalsecurity s an adequateexcuse for ecologicalmilitarymayhem Thomas 1995, 16).If environmentaldestruction s a necessaryaspectof warand the peacetimepractices of military institutions, an analysis of war which includes itsembeddedness npeacetimemilitarism snecessary o address heenvironmen-tal effectsof war.Such a perspectivemustpay adequateattention to what isrequired o prepare or war in a technological age,and how women andotherOthers are affectedby the realitiesof contemporarymilitary nstitutions andpractices.

CONCLUSIONSAND CAUTIONSEmphasizinghe ways in which war is a presence, a constant undertone,white noise in the background f socialexistence,movingsometimescloser tothe foregroundof collective consciousnessin the form of direct combatyetremaining mostly as an unconsideredgiven, allows for several promisinganalyses. To conclude, I will summarize our distinct benefits of feminist

philosophicalattentionto the constancyof militarypresence n mosteverydaycontemporaryife.

42



15/17

ChrisJ.Cuomo

1) By consideringthe presenceof war and militarism,philosophersandactivists areable to engagein a moreeffective, local, textured,multiplicitousdiscussion of specific examples and issues of militarism,especially duringpeacetime (when most militaryactivities occur). These include environ-mentaleffects,suchas the recent Frenchdecision to engagein nucleartesting;and effects on conceptionsof genderand on the lives of women, such as thetwelve-year-oldJapanesegirl who was recently raped by American soldiersstationedin Okinawa.

2) Expanding he field of vision when considering he ethical issuesof warallows us to betterperceiveand reflectupon the connections amongvariouseffects and causesof militarism,and between aspectsof everydaymilitarismandmilitaryactivities thatgenerallyoccurbetween declarationsof warand thesigningof peace treaties.3) As Robin Schott emphasizes,ocusingon the presenceof war is particu-larly necessary given current realities of war, in an age in which militarytechnologymakeswar less temporally, onceptually,andphysicallybounded,and in which civil conflict, guerillawars,ethnic wars,and urbanviolence inresponseto worseningsocial conditions are the most common formsof large-scale violence.

4) Finally, o return o apointwhich Iraisedearlier, t ismyhope that amorepresence-basedanalysisof war can be a tool for noticing and understandingotherpoliticaland ethical issuesaspresences,and not justevents. In a recentarticle in The New Yorker,HenryLouis Gatesrelaysthe following:You'vegot to startwith the families, [Colin Powell]saysof

the crisis n the innercities, andthen you've got to fix educa-tion so these little bright-eyed ive-year-olds,who are innocentas the dayis long and who know rightfromwrong,have all theeducation they need. And you have to do both these thingssimultaneously.It's like being able to support two militaryconflicts simultaneously. Militarymetaphors,the worn cur-rency of political discourse in this country,take on a certainvitality when he deploysthem. (Indeed, there are those whoarguethat much of the General'sallure stems from a sort oftranspositionof realms. Ithinkpeoplearehungry or amilitarysolution to inner-cityproblems, he black law professorandactivist PatriciaWilliamssays.) (Gates 1995, 77)

How (where?when?why?)are institutions of lawenforcement ike militaryinstitutions?How is the presumedconstant need for personal protectionexperiencedby some constructedsimilarly o the necessityof national secu-rity?How does the constancy of militarism induce complacencytowardorcollaboration with authoritativeviolence?Lookingat these questionsmighthelp interestedparties igureout how to create and sustainmovementsthatare

43



16/17

Hypatia

attentive to local realities and particularities boutwar,aboutviolence, andaboutthe enmeshment of varioussystemsof oppression.It is of coursecrucialthat the analysisI recommendhere notice similarities,patterns,and connections without collapsingall formsand instances of mili-tarismor of state-sponsored iolence into one neat picture.It is alsoimportantto emphasizethat an expanded conception of war is meant to disruptcrisis-basedpolitics that distractattentionfrommundane,everydayviolence that isrooted in injustice.Seeingthe constantpresenceof militarismdoes not requirethat middle-classand other privilegedAmericanssuddenlysee themselvesasconstantlyundersiege. It does requirethe development of abilities to noticethe extent to which people and ecosystemscan be severelyunder siege bymilitary nstitutionsandvalues,even when peace seemspresent.

NOTESI would like to thank Bat-Ami BarOn, Claudia Card, Robin Schott, and other

participantsof the InternationalAssociationof Women Philosophers'SymposiumonWar in Vienna, Austria,for theirhelpfulcommentson an earlierversion of thispaper.Thank you also to MariaLugones,whose incrediblyhelpfulface-to-faceconversationswith me concerningthe ideas in this papermademe realize what a tragedy t is thatphilosophydepartments eldom housemore than one feministphilosopher.1. I certainlybelieve that the presenceof warand armedconflicts variesgreatlyacrosshistoryand space.I also think that an expansiveconception of war aspresencemight shed light on manydifferentexamplesof warfareand militarysocieties, and onthe waysin which war is experiencedas a presenceby soldiersaswell as noncomba-tants.2. Of course,warsmightbe other thingstoo, and they certainlyresultfrom otherkinds of circumstances,deologies,and institutions.Mypointhere is that considerationof militaryconflict cannot neglect the various ormsand aspectsof oppressionembed-ded in war andmilitarism.3. Peach does acknowledgethat Elshtainalso criticizesthe way just-war heorydichotomizeswar and peace because it leads to a conception of peace as simplytheabsence of war ratherthan a 'chastenedpatriotism'which would restrain hinking inwarist terms (1994, 161). Note that this particularquestioning of the dichotomybetweenwarandpeacedoes little to unsettleassumptionshat warismerelyan event.

REFERENCESAquinas, Thomas. 1959. Selectedpoliticalwritings, d. A.P. D'Entreves.Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Augustine,St. 1984. Cityof God.Trans.HenryBettenson.London:PenguinBooks.Carson,Rachel. 1962. Silent pring.Boston:HoughtonMifflin.Cohen, Sheldon M. 1989.Armsand udgement: aw,morality, nd theconduct f war nthe twentiethentury.Boulder:WestviewPress.

44



17/17

ChrisJ.Cuomo

Cuomo, ChristineJ. 1992. Unravelling the problemsin ecofeminism.EnvironmentalEthics15(4): 351-63.Drucker,MerritP.1989. The militarycommander'sesponsibilityor the environment.Environmental thics11(3): 135-52.Elshtain,JeanBethke. 1987. Women ndwar.New York:Basic Books.Enloe,Cynthia. 1990. Bananas,beaches, nd bases:Making eminist enseof internationalpolitics.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.Gates,HenryLouis. 1995. Powell andthe black elite. The New Yorker,5 September.Griffin,Susan. 1989. Split culture.In Healing hewounds:Thepromise f ecofeminism,ed. JudithPlant.Philadelphia:New Society Publishers.

Grotius,Hugo. 1962. The lawof war andpeace.Trans.FrancisW. Kelsey.Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merril.King,Ynestra. 1990. Healing the wounds:Feminism,ecology,and the nature/culturedualism.In Reweavingheworld:Theemergence f ecofeminism,d. Irene Diamondand Gloria FemanOrenstein. San Francisco:SierraClub Books.Mies, Maria,and VandanaShiva. 1993. Ecofeminism.Atlantic Highlands,NJ: ZedBooks.Nagel, Thomas. 1974. War and massacre. n Warandmoral esponsibility,d. MarshallCohen, Thomas Nagel, and Thomas Scanlon. Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress.Peach, Lucinda. 1994. An alternative to pacifism?Feminismand just-war theory.Hypatia9(2): 152-72.Plumwood,Val. 1993. Feminism nd themastery fnature.New York:RoutledgePress.Ruddick,Sara.1989.Maternalhinking: owards politics f peace.Boston:Beacon Press.Schott, Robin. 1995. Genderandpostmoder war.Hypatia11(4): xx-xx.Thomas,William. 1995. Scorched arth:Themilitary'sssaulton theenvironment. hila-delphia:New Society Press.Walzer,Michael. 1977.Justandunjustwars.New York:BasicBooks.Warren,Karen. 1990. The power and promiseof ecological feminism.EnvironmentalEthics12(3): 125-46.

45

war is not just an event

Documents