"I like the word lethal. It is reminiscent [. . .] of pretty women and muscular men in classy hotels. Of secret negotiations and ice cubes in 25-year-old scotch glasses. [. . .]."

Commentator in a study by Ofra Ben Ishai

In this brief article, I will propose that the concept of lethality, aside from being poorly defined, has become a bleak commodity for Western military leaders. To be used as a tool for political consumption, devoid of real worth beyond permitting those who wish so to sweep aside any falsely perceived 'ethical' barriers to the conduct of war.

Notably military forces that have not paid much heed to such ethics, for example, the Russians, conduct themselves on the battlefield and in occupation, already at the ultimate end-state of this dark consumerism. Lethality is becoming a military fiction as far removed from reality as any James Bond movie.

That numerous Western militaries are now placing this at the centre of their national defence is, to me, both an act of desperation and a neglect of senior leaders' duties. It is a myth that shields itself from scrutiny. I will outline three points that you may wish to consider to gain a better understanding of my perspective. The first will be a rather heavy, but mercifully brief, interpretation of lethality as consumerism, using the work of post-modern sociologist Zygmunt Bauman.

Second, outline the simple fact that lethality is so poorly defined as to be conceptually meaningless, and finally, to dissect through first principles some of the recent leadership statements about lethality and how they raise more questions than provide answers.

Post-Modern Sociologists

Like many post-modern sociologists, Zygmunt Bauman saw the termination of the 'rational' modern society in the concentration camps of the Holocaust. Rational man, bringing industrial-scale slaughter to humanity. In its place now stands a world devoid of rational values; the only cause for existence is to consume. How much you possess being the only mark of merit.

Whilst this appears to be a potentially dark future, Bauman does see this as an opportunity, where the individual is now unconstrained by the guardrails of modernism. It is also important to note that societies don't just step over the border from modernism to postmodernism; these are theories, and of course, reality is far more complex. But Bauman's ideas are powerful ones.

But it is in the darker aspects of Bauman's postmodernism that I see the relationship between the military and lethality. To suggest that the political process surrounding military strategy is not immersed in post-modernism is a form of profound cognitive dissonance. Politics at present is a prime case study in Bauman's thesis; military strategy like it or not is inseparable from that. To use the words of General Miley, 'militaries don't fight war, nations do,' post-modern nations.

Lethality is becoming a commodity, an end in itself; sacks of shiny lethality become the worth of a military organisation. Detached from the necessity of military prudence. An anchorless idea that the Vietnam War and the outcomes of Western militaries in recent attempts at 'nation building' with massively overmatched firepower show is void.

The problem with any form of consumerism is that it is always form over substance; the unique and well-advertised commodity is immediately desirable and not subject to critique of its worth. The recent strike on Iran's nuclear facilities being a prime example, any questioning of the strategy (or lack thereof) and effectiveness was immediately viewed as unpatriotic.

Additionally, noting that the engines of this lethality consumerism, the defence industry, will do nothing to check this voraciousness. The entrance of numerous venture capital companies into the sector is a telling indicator.

Things are entirely subjective

My second point is that, like commodities themselves, what is desirable is entirely subjective. Additionally, as Stephen Wren had demonstrated with...