In this article I argue that contemporary counterinsurgency functions as a type of violent environmentality that aims to pre-empt or prevent the formation of insurgencies. Counterinsurgency becomes anticipatory as the ‘War on Terror’ morphs into a global counterinsurgency campaign oriented to the threat of insurgency and insurgents. The insurgent is faced as a spectral network that appears and disappears as distinctions between states of war and peace collapse and war is fought ‘amongst the people’. In this context, the population is (...) targeted as an unstable collective of future friends and future enemies that contains an ever present potential to become (counter)insurgent. Through examples of PSYOPS and the dropping of leaflets from above, I describe how preventing or pre-empting the formation of insurgents becomes a question of controlling the environment through the creation of biopolitical ‘effects’. (shrink)

The figure of today’s threat is the suddenly irrupting, locally self-organizing, systemically self-amplifying threat of large-scale disruption. This form of threat, fed by instability and metastability, is not only indiscriminate, it is also indiscrimin able; it is indistinguishable from the general environment. The figure of the environment shifts: from the harmony of a natural balance to the normality of a generalized crisis environment so encompassing in its endemic threat-form as to connect, across the spectrum, the polar extremes of war and (...) the weather. Michel Foucault characterizes the dominant contemporary regime of power, coincident with the rise of neoliberalism, as ‘environmental’: a governmentality which will act on the environment and systematically modify its variables. Its actions, he emphasizes, are not standardizing since the shift in the figure of the environment has moved it out of reach of normalization. Given the indiscriminateness of the environment’s autonomous activity, environmentality must work through the ‘regulation of effects’ rather than of causes. It must remain operationally ‘open to unknowns’ and catch nonlinear, transversal phenomena before they amplify the stirrings to actual crisis proportions. What systematicity is this? And: does power’s becoming-environmental mean that, politically, we are dealing with natural subjects? Where Foucault’s question ends is where, today, we must begin, in light of how the recomposition of power whose dawning he glimpsed in 1979 has since played out. In the context of Foucault’s theories of power, the question amounts to asking: is this still ‘biopolitics’? (shrink)