Foucaults analysis fails to identify the enemy because the enemy

is unidentifiable
Baudrillard 77 (Jean Baudrillard, dead frenchy, 1977, Forget
Foucault, pg 31, accessed 8/10/16)
But if Foucault spoke so well of power to usand let us not forget it, in real
objective terms which cover manifold diffractions but nonetheless do not
question the objective point of view one has about them, and of power
which is pulverized but whose reality principle is nonetheless not
questionedonly because power is dead? Not merely impossible to locate
because of dissemination, but dissolved purely and simply in a manner that
still escapes us, dissolved by reversal, cancellation, or made hyperreal
through simulation (who knows?). Nonetheless, something happened to
power which Foucault cannot retrieve once again from deep within his
genealogy: for him the political has no end, but only metamorphoses from
the despotic to the disciplinary, and at this level to the microcellular
according to the same process belonging to the physical and biological
sciences.
Failure to clearly identify an enemy results in critical advocacy
failure
Negri and Hardt 2k (Antonio Negri and Micheal Hardt,
deluzers, 2000, Empire, pg. 210-211)
This recognition takes us back to the initial question: What does it mean to be republican today? We have already seen
that the modern critical response of opening the dialectic between inside and outside is no longer possible. An effective
notion of postmodern republicanism will have to be constructed au milieu, on the basis of the lived experience of the
global multitude. One element we can put our finger on at the most basic and elemental level is the will to be against. In
general, the will to be against does not seem to require much explanation. Disobedience to authority is one of the most

. To us it seems completely obvious that those who are

exploited will resist and given the necessary conditions rebel. Today, however,
natural and healthy acts

this may not be so obvious. A long tradition of political scientists has said the problem is not why people rebel but why

the fundamental problem of political

philosophy is still precisely the one that Spinoza saw so clearly (and that
Wilhelm Reich rediscovered): Why do men fight for servitude as
stubbornly as though it were their salvation? The first question of political philosophy today
is not if or even why there will be resistance and rebellion, but rather how to determine the enemy
against which to rebel. Indeed, often the inability to identify the enemy is what
leads the will to resistance around in such paradoxical circles . The
identification of the enemy, however, is no small task given that
exploitation tends no longer to have a specific place and that we are
immersed in a system of power so deep and complex that we can no longer
determine specific difference or measure. We suffer exploitation, alienation, and command as
they do not. Or rather, as Deleuze and Guattari say,

we do not know where to locate the production of oppression . And yet

enemies, but
we still resist and struggle.