Stealth Conflicts

[Aimless]

Introduction to the book by the same name:

http://www.ashgate.com/pdf/SamplePag...icts_Intro.pdf

The author's blog on the topic:

http://stealthconflicts.wordpress.com/


Questions (putting aside any condemnation/guilt-tripping/sneering etc):

Is the concept and its description accurate, informative and helpful?
--> If not, which aspects are, in your view, especially inaccurate or unhelpful?

Is this (the existence of large "unseen" conflicts) a problem?
--> In which ways and for whom?

Does the problem need to be solved?
--> Why and how?

Is our understanding of conflicts in these areas complete? What's missing from the analyses (by laymen, policymakers, journalists, etc) that do occur?

[Loki]

If we're talking about the academic world, then I think the author overstates his point. It's true that certain conflicts get far more attention than others, generally based on their importance to policymakers or their popularity on college campuses (after all, it doesn't hurt to do research that one's college or students are interested in!). But it's not accurate to say that the "stealth conflicts" in question are ignored. Do a search on JSTOR and I guarantee that you'll find some mentions of them. There are people who specialize on just about every part of the planet, and I find it highly unlikely that those people would ignore any serious conflict.

http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/d...nflict_dataset This is a quantitative example. I'm sure you can track down the article that goes with it-

I'll write more when I have time.

[Aimless]

To clarify, I don't think he's talking about the academic world, at least not primarily.

[Loki]

Not primarily, but he mentions it.

[Steely Glint]

Yeah, these are definitely a thing. They could let off nukes in the middle of the DRC and no one would give a shit unless western journalists were killed.

It would help his case though, if he didn't refer to large, desperate groups ('the media', 'policymakers', 'academia') as if they were individuals with coherent motivations. That's always a little red flag for me.

[LittleFuzzy]

He lost me with his intro. Sure, most sources of observation/study tend to ignore the costs of secondary/tertiary effects consequent to lingering secondary/tertiary violence as a result of prior warfare. That's more or less a truism. Consider though that as he so-briefly mentions, the secondary/tertiary violence was happening well BEFORE the '98 invasion. Where does one draw the line? He drew it in such a way as to maximize his numbers and sensationalism.