My inner math geekiness gets excited when I see quantitative analysis that is derived from good data sets. I wrote too much initially.

Here's the bottom line:

COL Felter and some academics found a negative correlation in Iraq and the Phillipines between employment and violence. Over time, as employment increased, violence increased.

This is counter-intuitive to what we now think. GEN Charialli and the 1st CAV had "success" in Sadr City in 04/05 by getting the young men off the streets and employed. GEN Patraeus told us in 07 that money is a weapon. The academics analysis suggest otherwise. The real answer is probably sometimes, it depends.

What they need now is for practisioners to confirm/deny their hypothesis with anecdotal evidence. After that, they can start using econometrics and qualitative work to ask why it works in some areas and why it does not work in others (as Rex and Marc are suggesting).

So the question is

In your experience, did the level of violence increase/decrease as we flooded an AO with money and the men were employed?

Marc- I refuse to watch Glee .

Mike