I would say that you are conflating two things: war done to destroy the enemy, and then taking political power of another nation by force, and ensuring safety a

I would say that you are conflating two things: war done to destroy the enemy, and then taking political power of another nation by force, and ensuring safety and continuance of government. Soldiers do the first job, and police do the second. In the Global War on Terror, the line has gotten blurry, (even Vietnam was called a "police action") but even the lowest intensity conflict has life and death sacrifices for the mission and the imposition of political will over a populace through threat of violence that are completely unknown in a modern tech business. You could make the argument that lawsuits would be the equivalent to direct action, and I might agree with that, except there is no violence and it's done entirely within a set of rules (the legal system). I would agree that businesses and militaries do share similarities, and solve for the same problems. For instance, employee surveys came out of troop morale studies in WWI, and there is a lot of cross contamination of ideas, like the book, "Team of Teams". Finally, there are cases where businesses actual do go to war, think Blackwater, circa 2006, where the services provided directly support one side in an armed conflict. To me, that's what a business going to war looks like!