JOURNAL: Thailand's Global Guerrillas

Matthew B Arnold, writing for the Bangkok Post, traces the development of the government's counter-insurgency effort in southern Thailand. He concludes that the confusion over a model for the insurgency is causing successive failures to suppress it:

Insurgents, militants, Malay separatists, Islamic terrorists, bandits, drug addicts, rogue politicians and criminals are all names that, amongst still others, have been given at various times to the perpetrators of violence in Thailand's southernmost provinces. The violence in the South has most often been generically described as being committed by ''insurgent groups'', with a general sentiment that they are ethno-nationalist, separatist ones and that there is a dash of Islamic fundamentalism involved....

Undoubtedly, it is hard to know who exactly is behind the violence since nobody ever claims responsibility. Yet, it is impossible to really design or debate policy response if nobody has a coherent, consistent understanding of who is actually perpetrating the violence. Coming to such awareness is imperative to resolving the violence in the South.

We are going to see this pattern of confusion repeated again and again when states fight open source opponents. Further, the inexorable decline of the legitimacy of nation-states within a globalized environment, will make counter-insurgency harder to accomplish with each successive year.

Comments

[Nato Welch]

Now this is where I think the term "open source" in reference to insurgents or warfare is stretched a bit too far.

Violent groups that actually hide their presence or motives don't strike me as very "open" at all. It tends to resemble "security through obscurity" more.

I don't disagree that this secretiveness is apparently working for them. It's just that that tendency is not an "open source" one.

[Arherring]

"Insurgents, militants, Malay separatists, Islamic terrorists, bandits, drug addicts, rogue politicians and criminals ... generically described as being committed by ''insurgent groups'', with a general sentiment that they are ethno-nationalist, separatist ones and that there is a dash of Islamic fundamentalism involved..."

Sounds like 4GW to me with the twist of 'you don't even know who we are so go ahead and give up now' added. I also don't see the open-source influence.

[Syn Diesel]

Open Source refers to the fact that information wants to be free, and will be free, not that combatants advertise openly themselves on interweb blogs.

John, regarding the intersection of terrorism and the black market, are you familliar with the 911 backstory of Mohamed Atta's association with german black marketeer Wolfgang Bohringer tracked down by Daniel Hopsicker of Mad Cow Productions? (http://www.madcowprod.com/) 911 conspiracy theory / "internet source" lable was easy to throw at Daniel Hopsicker but his investigation was followed up with an FBI terror alert a few weeks back (see http://www.madcowprod.com/11162006.html)

[John Robb]

NATO: The insurgency appears to be more open source than merely a secretive cell or group of hierarchically organized cells -- in that there are many groups that are cooperating to achieve a common plausible promise despite a difference in primary loyalty (which translates into motivation).

Arherring: 4GW is definitely there although I think you are arguing a point I am not sure needs to be argued.

Thansk Syn.

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/09/bazaar_dynamics.html

[Arherring]

I suppose what I am trying to say is that this is very clearly 4GW with a small twist and I don't see any evidence of open-source influence.

So, are they Global Guerillas because they are 4GW, because they are insurgents, or because they are open-source? Or is it none of the above and they are Global Guerillas because you say they are?

I just want to know where the distinction is.

[John Robb]

Lind's generational framework is merely one way to view the evolution of warfare. I use it because it is useful. However, there are elements of what we see today in some locations that don't fit cleanly within the framework. My effort at global guerrillas is to provide more comprehensive framework for understanding the current situation. If you don't think it is useful, please feel free to move on to another forum.

[Jim S]

Having lived in the area 40 years ago when the last of the communist rebels were wandering around in the jungle, this is to point out that the ethnic conflict, the Thai government and Chinese capitalists lording it over poor native Muslim Malays, raises tensions and violence. What has changed is the internet, ready availability of the AK-47 and the radicalization of religion by both Fundamentalist Islam and Christianity. The cells and networks of alienated males are an integral part of their religion and they believe necessary to defend their women and culture.

[Duncan Kinder]

" Undoubtedly, it is hard to know who exactly is behind the violence since nobody ever claims responsibility. Yet, it is impossible to really design or debate policy response if nobody has a coherent, consistent understanding of who is actually perpetrating the violence. Coming to such awareness is imperative to resolving the violence in the South.

We are going to see this pattern of confusion repeated again and again when states fight open source opponents."

Not only is it beginning to dawn upon the intelligentsia that Iraq was not the "central front in the "War on Terror" TM (at least before 2003) but today's New York Times, in its article, "Pakistani Role Seen in Taliban Surge at Border," reveals that that it is beginning to grasp that - if such a central front does exist - it is more closely linked to the bowels of Pakistan's ISI than to anything in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/world/asia/21quetta.html?hp&ex=1169442000&en=671457afad271bb2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

It is childishly obvious and easily ascertainable that this Pakistani activity has been funded by Saudi sources, which in turn are funded by Americans every time they fuel their cars.

Publicly available information to this effect was available in the fall of 2001. (I know because I then Googled it.)

A cogent response to 9/11 would have been a Manhattan style project to develop alternative energy - preferably solar cells, IMHO. Indeed, such a project has been urgently needed ever since the oil shocks of the 1970's.

Instead, we invaded Iraq.

[Duncan Kinder]

A follow-through to my prior post:

Via the Oil Drum, according to the GAO "U.S. energy R&D, policy are inadequate"

http://www.energybulletin.net/24931.html

John Robb's postings about black swan germ warfare, etc., are interesting as far as it goes; but I sincerely hope that we also can get some black swans that will reduce the up-front capital costs of alternative energy.

quote:

It is unlikely that DOE's current level of R&D funding or the nation's current energy policies will be sufficient to deploy alternative energy sources in the next 25 years that will reverse our growing dependence on imported oil or the adverse environmental effects of using conventional fossil energy.

The United States has generally relied on market forces to determine the nation's energy portfolio, primarily conventional supplies of oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy. In contrast, advanced energy technologies have higher up-front capital costs that make them less cost competitive than conventional technologies.

As a result, despite periodic energy price spikes caused by disruptive world events and about $50 billion (in real terms) in energy R&D funding since 1978, the United States has made only steady incremental progress in developing and deploying advanced renewable, coal, and nuclear technologies that can compete with conventional energy technologies.

However, continued reliance on conventional technologies leaves the United States vulnerable to crude oil supply disruptions, with economic, energy security, and national security consequences.

The nation is once again assessing how best to stimulate the deployment of advanced energy technologies in response to recent high energy prices--caused by the growing world demand for energy, wars in the Middle East, and last year's hurricanes—and concerns about the adverse environmental effects, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, of using conventional fossil energy.

Reducing the nation's dependence on oil and carbon dioxide emissions in the next 25 years is not unlike the 1960s challenge to put a man on the moon. Without sustained high energy prices or concerted, high-profile federal government leadership, U.S. consumers are unlikely to change their energy-use patterns, and the United States will continue to rely upon its current energy portfolio.

Specifically, government leadership is needed to overcome technological and market barriers to deploying advanced energy technologies that would reduce the nation's vulnerability to oil supply disruptions and the adverse environmental effects of burning fossil fuels.

The nation’s current energy portfolio has raised concerns about the adverse environmental effects of energy generation—particularly greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired and oil-fired power plants and the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel.

In addition, the duration of certain federal tax incentives has been insufficient to stimulate investment decisions to deploy advanced energy technologies. For example, renewable energy industry representatives have stated that the 2-year extension of the production tax credit in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 does not provide sufficient certainty to stimulate investment. In providing a production tax credit to stimulate the construction of projects using advanced technologies, the credit’s duration is key to encouraging companies and their lenders to undertake the substantial investments and build an industry over time.

Several states have taken the lead in encouraging the deployment of advanced energy technologies, particularly in renewable energy. For example, in the past 7 years, Texas tripled its renewable energy use as a result of its renewable portfolio standard. Similarly, Minnesota’s ethanol program has displaced 10 percent of gasoline consumption with ethanol. Many other states have initiatives to stimulate renewable energy generation as well. States’ initiatives that diversify our energy portfolio and reduce harmful emissions are positive steps.

Similarly, foreign countries, including Brazil, Denmark, and Germany, have sustained longterm efforts using mandates and/or financial incentives to deploy advanced energy technologies that are providing, or are expected in the future to provide, significant amounts of energy. Approaches taken by these countries may provide useful insights and opportunities for fostering the deployment of advanced energy technologies.

:end_of_quote