The attacks carried out by extremists in Paris are an example of an insurgency of ideology. The interpretation of literature is used as a cover for violence. Urbanization and integration of immigrant communities can become a mitigating factor. The role of education and economic development cannot be understated.
Kilcullen described the coming age of the urban guerilla as dense villages along coasts giving way to evolving forms of violence. In Mogadishu he described platoons of urban militia that move succinctly according to the environment which they operate. They accomplished this efficiently driving mounted trucks that move in columns without the modern technology deployed by militaries.
Although Paris is by no means Mogadishu, Mumbai or Jamaican slums, there exists a sizable migrant and ethnic population that lives along the train tracks riding east into the city from De Gaulle airport. This is the lowest point on the socioeconomic ladder- is not the place where tourists flock, and I am not sure what they need to survive, but the conditions are atrocious rivaling the worst ghettos I have scene in the US. I would be interested in the demographics of this population.
The Parisean version of the urban guerilla is partially similar to the Boston Marathon bombers, with strong ties to an insurgency, extreme nature and ability to operate in an urban environment. The Boston crew also received outside support in terms of operations and planning from an insurgent outpost in Russia. It is unclear from media reports regarding the extent which ISIS or Yemen may have provided operational support, while the philosophical sphere of influence is obvious. The use of philosophical beliefs to draw members to radical forms of religion represents a fundamental construct of the theoretical insurgency.
The use of proxy wars is an example of how concentrated interests are more inclined to mobilize logistical support. This is evident in Libya and Syria as failed nation-states wage conflict with rebels supported by outside groups like ISIS and AQAP. The conflict enables the insurgency to establish legitimacy as a political form of structure and provide territory for operations.
The need to assimilate migrant communities socially, culturally and economically has never been more evident, in the wake of Charlie Hebdo. Urban economics can provide a basis for the literature in terms of integrating communities of mixed income.
George Friedman refers to integration in a recent Stratfor posting from Geopolitical Weekly. Is it possible to have social integration without economic integration (entry to the middle class)? Friedman states that the killings have nothing to do with poverty. On the surface, this is true. Although, how do you promote multiculturalism with segregated housing structures based on nationality and religious affiliation? If you do not integrate economically, it might be impossible to integrate socially based on the cost of housing, which is particularly high in London and Paris. The more unequal society becomes in terms of income distribution will increase the divide of social segregation in terms of housing.
Urban economics literature discussed about benefits of social capital -- the less interaction one has outside their community can make it difficult to break the cycle of poverty. This goes for the low end - reaching up the ladder as well as the high end - reading down the ladder. My hypothesis is that if the immigrant communities are better integrated into broader society (economically and socially), they may be exposed to more opportunities and cultures outside of radical religious beliefs. You obviously cannot force people to live in diverse communities, but a starting point would be better outreach and perhaps educational integration. Brown v. Board of Education was hugely controversial, but it was instrumental in the political integration of minority communities.
One of the books we read for Oxford was about immigration in Great Britain and the EU. My assumption is that France is similar to Britain in this respect. The EU is supposed to increase migration and population movement by bringing down barriers to free movement of labor (trade). Many of the right wing (tea party like) groups in Europe have benefited from the backlash against movement of labor. The drawback from is similar to what is seen in the US - competition from an influx of low skilled workers suppresses wage growth. The economy as a whole benefits from the housing, consumption, and population growth that immigration brings.
Kilcullen described the coming age of the urban guerilla as dense villages along coasts giving way to evolving forms of violence. In Mogadishu he described platoons of urban militia that move succinctly according to the environment which they operate. They accomplished this efficiently driving mounted trucks that move in columns without the modern technology deployed by militaries.
Although Paris is by no means Mogadishu, Mumbai or Jamaican slums, there exists a sizable migrant and ethnic population that lives along the train tracks riding east into the city from De Gaulle airport. This is the lowest point on the socioeconomic ladder- is not the place where tourists flock, and I am not sure what they need to survive, but the conditions are atrocious rivaling the worst ghettos I have scene in the US. I would be interested in the demographics of this population.
The Parisean version of the urban guerilla is partially similar to the Boston Marathon bombers, with strong ties to an insurgency, extreme nature and ability to operate in an urban environment. The Boston crew also received outside support in terms of operations and planning from an insurgent outpost in Russia. It is unclear from media reports regarding the extent which ISIS or Yemen may have provided operational support, while the philosophical sphere of influence is obvious. The use of philosophical beliefs to draw members to radical forms of religion represents a fundamental construct of the theoretical insurgency.
The use of proxy wars is an example of how concentrated interests are more inclined to mobilize logistical support. This is evident in Libya and Syria as failed nation-states wage conflict with rebels supported by outside groups like ISIS and AQAP. The conflict enables the insurgency to establish legitimacy as a political form of structure and provide territory for operations.
The need to assimilate migrant communities socially, culturally and economically has never been more evident, in the wake of Charlie Hebdo. Urban economics can provide a basis for the literature in terms of integrating communities of mixed income.
George Friedman refers to integration in a recent Stratfor posting from Geopolitical Weekly. Is it possible to have social integration without economic integration (entry to the middle class)? Friedman states that the killings have nothing to do with poverty. On the surface, this is true. Although, how do you promote multiculturalism with segregated housing structures based on nationality and religious affiliation? If you do not integrate economically, it might be impossible to integrate socially based on the cost of housing, which is particularly high in London and Paris. The more unequal society becomes in terms of income distribution will increase the divide of social segregation in terms of housing.
Urban economics literature discussed about benefits of social capital -- the less interaction one has outside their community can make it difficult to break the cycle of poverty. This goes for the low end - reaching up the ladder as well as the high end - reading down the ladder. My hypothesis is that if the immigrant communities are better integrated into broader society (economically and socially), they may be exposed to more opportunities and cultures outside of radical religious beliefs. You obviously cannot force people to live in diverse communities, but a starting point would be better outreach and perhaps educational integration. Brown v. Board of Education was hugely controversial, but it was instrumental in the political integration of minority communities.
One of the books we read for Oxford was about immigration in Great Britain and the EU. My assumption is that France is similar to Britain in this respect. The EU is supposed to increase migration and population movement by bringing down barriers to free movement of labor (trade). Many of the right wing (tea party like) groups in Europe have benefited from the backlash against movement of labor. The drawback from is similar to what is seen in the US - competition from an influx of low skilled workers suppresses wage growth. The economy as a whole benefits from the housing, consumption, and population growth that immigration brings.
No comments:
Post a Comment