I apologize - I should have been more precise. The 'hump' I refer to is the one which usually has time on the x-axis (before the conflict, during, after the conflict), and either intensity, or utilization of force, or something of that sort on the y-axis.
Attached are two examples of some slides I used in the period 2000-2002 - based on work we did at RAND Europe for some European MoDs. One was used to illustrate choices that countries could make about where in the 'conflict hump' they wanted to contribute forces (e.g. a bit throughout the hump. or only in the 'heavy lifting' stages, or just in the 'mopping up' stage, etc. The other was used to illustrate the presumed benefits of network-centrism: that countries would be able to 'shift' the hump to the left (intervening more quickly), and to also make it 'shorter' (taking over control more quickly and so being able to draw down more quickly). Hans Binnendijk and Stu Johnosn also used it to illustrate what they called the 'stabilization and reconstruction gap' (see http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...ab_rec_ops.pdf - pp. 607). And since then, the idea has been used for the different phases of a conflict.
Hope this provides some more clarity about the 'conflict curve' concept that I'm now trying to retrace the pedigree of. I will now look into some of your suggestions - for which already my thanks.
-Stephan
Bookmarks