My qualities and abilities in comparison to other conflict analysts and security specialists
It would be rather pertinent to say that my qualities are unique. I do believe, however, that my qualities of thoroughness, independence and open-mindedness are quite rare in the current world of overly hazy, hasty and fashionable conflict and security analyses in the media, without offering clear definitions, perspectives and possible solutions to decision-makers and the wider public alike.
Above all my willingness to think outside the box and offer, for instance, offer definitions of terrorism, banditry and other forms of violence that should be self-evident but are often ‘counter-intuitive’ to many people. Also, I can and do suggest ways to deal with those kinds of violence, that should at the very least offer a fresh look at things, give people hope that these seemingly intractable and unsolvable problems – all too often intimately tied to brutality and brutalisation – can be properly understood and dealt with.
In order to show a central how I think and tackle things, let me quote a central argument in my forthcoming book ‘Conceptualising Violence’:
“it is best to a) base primary concepts on observable actions by humans and other (sentient) organisms that may occur at any point in time; b) base secondary concepts on observable actors i.e. individuals and groups of humans; and c) base tertiary concepts on more elusive and fluctuating human drives, motives and beliefs of actors across certain points in time – even if the latter two categories involve deeper analysis of the reasons why ‘action-phenomena’ occur.” (Introduction)