Shadows of War by Carolyn Nordstrom. This book was unsettling, not just because it shines light on something she believes people don't really want to know about, but also her analysis of the situations was so clear and eloquent it made me wonder why something so obvious hadn't been written a long time ago. Following the best traditions of anthropology by probing deep into the world of war in southern Africa, Nordstrom addresses some very basic questions that are quite difficult to get answers for. Namely how does war function, why does it function that way and, knowing the answers to those questions, how can peace be established? She focuses heavily not just on what war does to the population in terms of the trauma and often horror of war but also on how people live, even thrive, in a warzone. The comparison was made to Catch-22 in terms of how absurd the nature of war really is; enemy leaders often knowingly help each other in order to further their own financial gains. The very people who supposedly want to stop the conflict are the ones who profit tremendously from the increased demand for basic necessities and so they act very slowly to end the fighting, if they act at all. There is a realization that the black and grey markets play a vital role in the legitimate economy. Globally, most of the transactions made are of an extra-legal nature, yet there is nearly no effort put into studying this. When Nordstrom actually confronts economists and others who ought to make it their business to study the black market, they make replies like "fieldwork is too dangerous!" She makes the very salient point that if the US intends to stop Al-Qaeda, an organization that operates entirely in shadows, then a study of the black market is in the interests of national security.
One flaw that was brought up with the book was that Nordstrom collected a large amount of quotes from people living in warzones in Sri Lanka and Angola, she reproduced these block quotes but offered little analysis of them. When I was reading this I didn't notice (and maybe that's why I'm not an English major) but even after it was pointed out I don't think it's really necessary, if her intent is to show us first hand accounts of war then an analysis of those accounts is redundant. Also, I think it would be presumptuous of her to take an account that pretty much speaks for itself and then say "What he was trying to say was..."
The final analysis seems to be that it's nearly impossible to stop the illegal flow of goods and that even if one were to study black market trade it would not offer a completely reliable picture. She does, however, have a solution for war: Since governments have to have the support of the people to wage war, eliminating that support will eliminate their ability to make war. She points out, "Ten thousand soldiers can't control a million people unless people accept the right of the militaries to control the means of violence and the rights to power. Thus, a great deal is invested in maintaining the illusion that governments and their militaries not only have the right to power, but indeed have power. If their millions of citizens simply refuse to recognize their right, and turn to other means of governance, a particular government simply ceases to have authority. It ceases to be. Regimes likewise fade, the way kingly rule was eclipsed by the modern state."
Granted, this is easier said than done, but if people were to collectively realize this (and they've done it before) it would go a long way towards ending war.