Wars unsettle our commonsense understandings of movement and mobility. Simultaneously entropic and inertial, they conjure up images of rampant disorder and chaos as well as strained and crippled formations locked in negative tension. On the one hand, detrimental movement; on the other, deadly stalemate. Both mobility and immobility are, as such, associated with the iconography of warfare and confl icts. Th ey may be presented as out of time through pictures of empty streets, ruins, trenches, and dead bodies frozen in contorted positions, yet, conversely, some of the most archetypical images of war connote speed, fl ows, and movement, seen in images of troop advances or retreats, rows of traveling refugees, and hauls of humanitarian aid shipped or fl own into airports and harbors from afar. In temporal terms, confl ict and violence are oft en represented in the lethargy of decay or the entropy of aggression.Th at wars evoke both movement and stagnation is, perhaps, not surprising as the very nature of attack and defense is centered on such diff erent modalities as moving across and digging in. However, behind the more obvious (im)mobilities of warfare lies a more subtle movement of people, connecting people and places socially and spatially. When seen from afar the commotion of warfare may be iconically related to the friction of the frontlines or clashes of confl ict. But in the shadows of spectacular confl ictual shift s or standoff s emerges an alternative myriad of underlying movements, disruptions, and localizations. Confl ict and warfare may disconnect and disrupt, but they also connect and realign, creating alternative orders and social formations in the process. Th ey not only spur displacement but simultaneously facilitate emplacement.Confl ict and warfare may thus generate novel social positions, avenues of mobility, and worth in the process of dismantling old ones. Th ey instantiate formations and relations that come to inform more socially oriented fears and desires and become frames of action and understanding related to concerns outside or beyond the warring order. Th e movement from peace to confl ict may thus reconfi gure social environments, change social positions, and create settings that people live in rather than merely through (Vigh 2008). Th e social sciences have been relatively inept at capturing the more social and everyday aspects of confl ict and warfare. Considered the most exceptional of events, such situations have been seen as foundationally extraordinary to social life.Th e reason for our relatively slow move toward examining the less remarkable and more nuanced dynamics of confl icts and warfare can be found in two related factors. First of all, understanding not just the displacement but also the emplacement generated by such situations 10 Ⅲ Jesper Bjarnesen and Henrik Vigh requires a view from within the actual social fi elds and formations in question, necessitating a commitment to a type of fi eldwork that most researchers are, understandably, unwilling to undertake. Second, ...