In a press release titled Good fences make good
neighbors researchers at the New England Complex Systems
Institute (NECSI) and Brandeis University have quantified when
partially mixed ethnic neighborhoods break into ethnic violence.
In this
press release at Eurakalert, the summary is that
thoroughly mixed neighborhoods and
segregated neighborhoods with clear boundarires
avoid problems with ethnic violence, whereas areas that are not
well mixed and have unclear boundaries tend to have problems with
ethnic violence. In thinking about a recent
maps I've seen in the news about current Sunni/Shiite
violence in Baghdad, it seems that this holds up pretty well, and
indicates that ideas like putting up walls between neighborhoods
might actually be a good strategy there.
I personally think this is brilliant- and I think the same thing goes for larger than neighborhood areas outside of Baghdad. If there were no Shi'ite invasion into Anbar, they would have turned against al Qaida long ago....etc.
I think a lot of us are starting to see this: a tense but strongly committed union is a superior alternative to chaotic king-of-the-hill.
When federations of groups start from a position of "barely able to tolerate one another yet all dependent on doing so" then the only way to go is up -- and it's just the way things will tend to go, at their own damn pace, with "F YOU"s liberally exchanged all around along the way.
Reminds me of a certain collection of small states, a couple of centuries ago.
The research asserts that in highly mixed regions, groups of the same type are not large enough to sway collective behavior toward claiming any particular public space; likewise, well-segregated groups are protected by clear boundaries identifying their space. However, the study concludes that “partial separation with poorly defined boundaries fosters conflict.”
I don't think this is entirely relevant where conflict is already underway, especially the first part. In Iraq the only neighborhoods with little conflict are those where there is absolutely no mixing at all. The one argument that Iraq may not explode in civil war once the U.S. leaves is that most neighborhoods have already been completely ethnically cleansed one way or the other.
The one argument that Iraq may not explode in civil war once the U.S. leaves is that most neighborhoods have already been completely ethnically cleansed one way or the other.
You don't think people are going to try to reassert their private property rights after the US leaves? The only thing stopping them now are the well armed Joes patrolling the streets ready to quell any outright violence between armed locals.
I've heard stories where people were forced at gunpoint to sign over the deed to the house they were 'cleansed' from. Any free, stable, open democratic government simply can not be based on abuses of this sort on the magnitude they were committed. I'm sure this will be the *major* issue of the eventual Peace & Reconciliation Committee and until property rights are restored there will be no peace.
New strategy for Iraq?
In a press release titled Good fences make good neighbors researchers at the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI) and Brandeis University have quantified when partially mixed ethnic neighborhoods break into ethnic violence.
In this press release at Eurakalert, the summary is that
avoid problems with ethnic violence, whereas areas that are not well mixed and have unclear boundaries tend to have problems with ethnic violence. In thinking about a recent maps I've seen in the news about current Sunni/Shiite violence in Baghdad, it seems that this holds up pretty well, and indicates that ideas like putting up walls between neighborhoods might actually be a good strategy there.