The Thai Red Shirts have the hallmarks of an insurgency. Does a book written by David Petraeus show how to resolve the issue?
The Thai government is preparing to launch a national reconciliation process after the most violent and divisive political confrontation in recent memory came to a head last month. But some key questions have so far been left unanswered. Is the country facing a terrorist threat? Is there a risk of a popular uprising or insurgency? These aren’t academic questions—they need to be answered if Thailand’s leaders are to have any hope of finding the right prescription for the country’s political malaise.
I spoke recently with a Thai Special Forces officer who told me that the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual is actually a good place to start thinking about the situation in his country. The book, penned mostly by US Gen. David Petraeus and US Gen. James Amos, draws on the views of academics, lawyers, human rights activists and journalists. Petraeus, just nominated to succeed Gen. Stanley McChrystal as head of US forces in Afghanistan, was commander of the US forces in Iraq during the so-called surge in 2007, and beta-tested the doctrine with impressive results. Indeed, he’s expected to continue implementing the counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan.
The officer has a point. The scenarios outlined in the Field Manual contain some striking parallels with what has happened in Thailand over the past couple of months, and while it would be a stretch to describe the Red Shirt movement as a full-blown insurgency, as the Islamist militants in the south of the country are usually described, there’s still plenty of food for thought.
The Manual defines an insurgency as an organized movement ‘aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.’ A common view of insurgencies is that they’re a struggle to break away from the government with a view to forming an autonomous identity. But the Manual argues that this isn’t necessarily the case, and that overthrowing the existing social order within a single state is enough to warrant the insurgency label.
The Manual adds that an insurgent organization normally consists of five elements: Leadership, Combatants, Political Cadre, Auxiliaries and Mass base. Leadership is essentially those providing strategic guidance to the insurgency, and they typically secure this status through sheer force of personality. Combatants are those who actually engage in battle with the authorities, and in doing so provide security for the movement. Political Cadres drive the political agenda of the insurgency, and execute the leadership’s plans, while Auxiliaries provide general support but don’t actually engage in combat (they instead run safe houses, store weapons and provide supplies and other logistical needs). The Mass base is the supporting populace of the insurgent movement.
Photo Credit: Flickr / K.rol2007
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Mark Smith
The problem with the theisis here is that too many players are seeking a military solution to a political problem.
It has not worked in Southern Thailand, nor will it work in regards to the Redshirts. The solution is in deplomacy, and perhaps bringing in neutral outside mediatiors. Perhaps Sweden, the UN, the International Crisis Group, something to avert years of bloody and unwinable conflict on two rather flawed sets of players.
Jon Brown
This article is one of the worst pieces of trash generated by armchair analysts.
This is not an insurgency. It is clearly an attempt by the majority party to get back into the reins of government after winning two landslide majority votes which proved their mandate. That party had in called a third election to again prove that mandate just prior to the army coup that removed it from office.
The coup, a coup sponored constitution (voted for at the point of a gun and under emergency law without a fair electoral campaign) and a new election which saw that party returned to power.
Then a series of very suspect judicial decisions (an some of the courts were in fact given roles by coup leaders– courts that did not exist proir to the coup), banning the legitimate party 2 times, getting 2 legitimate Prime Ministers out of office on technicalities. Banning several hundred of elected politicians from participation in the electoral process for 5 year periods.
Double standards through the use of a (PAD) protests to make it seem like the Legitimate TRT/PPP/PT government was “opposed” by “the people” when it was supported over the Democrat Party by about 2 to 1 majorities in every national election held in the past decade and where the Democrats have not even chosen to run in one Poll (knowing that they would lose). Note that the PAD, even though they have formed a new party (NPP), has not won a single election. They have no elected members in Parliment (compared with several hundred PT members).
No this is not an insurgency, it is an attempt by the electors to have the Democrat Party, and their urban elite backers in Bangkok, submit to the fact that in a Democracy, majority rules and that means they actually get to govern.
Let us suppose that such a thing were to happen in the United States, what would our reaction be?
If say the US Democrats were prevented from actually taking power after an election that saw a landslide defeat of the Republicans, by suspect court decisions, using laws retroactively, dissolving entire parties after electoral misconduct of one or two members?
Then Republicans call martial law, go around detaining vocal Democrats. Allowing only Fox News to broadcast and shutting all other news media.
Throwing hundreds into jail without trials. Demanding that some be tried as Terrorists. (And Executed?)
Ad then when the US Democrats organize public masses to appear on the Mall, where the minority government shoots 90 dead, wounds 2000, gets ID materials from the thousands that remain, and then sends troops to their doors after they disperse to “tell them the facts”.
Well what would be locical and appropriate response be?
Would it be for the Bangkok Post to publish a long a detailed analysis of the Democrats USA movement to regain the White House from the Republicans as analogous to Terrorism and Al Queda?
No, I think not.
Let us be clear, the Abhist Goverment is not recognized as legitimate by the majority of Thais. In order for the people to view it as legitimate it needs a voter mandate.
Yet, it choses not to go to the polls.
Instead it relies on connections within the mostly unelected Bangkok Elite, and it uses those connections to force an army to kill its own citizens.
Indeed Mr. Abhisit has become a major impediment to the vary process he claims to enspouse, reconcilliation.
Thailand today increasing like an Orwellian distopia than a functioning democracy. Just because he speaks English well and claims to be a Democrat, we should not be fooled by his smoke and mirror tricks. He is the articulate smiling face an extremely oppressive ruthless party that is trying to crush the majority party of the People of Thailand.
Dan
Insurgency? Did you forget that this government came to power through a military coup that kicked out the majority red shirts?
If this had happened in the U.S. or most any other country, there would be far more bloodshed. I think the red shirts have actually shown an incredible amount of self control.
Divine Dauphin
This is the most absurd comment about Thailand I have ever encountered. What planet are you from, Dan?
HRE Smith
He is a Muslim, a graduate of a Catholic School run for Bangkok’s Privileged Elite. A minority, in a minority, in a minority of Thai Society.
Manie
Dan. you are red
Srithanonchai
One of the more silly contributions to our attempts to understand the Red Shirts, I would say…
Mike
I have to agree with David Brown. I certainly have not agreed with all of the tactics by the Red Shirts, but they have been painted in a light that is unfair. The Yellow Shirts, backed by Abhisit’s Democrats, were actually the ones calling for a non-democratic system of selected MPs because they did not like what electoral democracy resulted in– the majority rules. The party that has represented the Red Shirts, has won the most seats for several elections, but it has resulted in a military coup, a backroom deal that some consider a coup, yellow shirt protests, a concerted propaganda effort by the Democratic led gov’t, and a violent crackdown.
The backroom deal with coalition partners that put Abhisit in power is rarely discussed.. of course, in a parliamentry democracy, that’s completely fair, but the way it was done was through heavy handed army tactics. Abhisit is afraid of new elections because he knows the Pheu Thai would likely win.
What we have now is a movement of mostly poor, rural people that are so disenfranchised, that they are willing to engage in direct action– sometimes violently, to express their frustration. I abhor the arson and bomb attacks by the Black Shirts (and the army) but it would be in the best interest of all sides, if discussion replaced what is happening. If this continues, we’ll likely have a situation like Myanmar. I hope the best for Thailand!
David Brown
of course the same hard look at assumptions should apply to the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan
democracy means government chosen by the people for the people… so what are the bloody americans (with their $COIN$) doing there?
its the oil and gas pipelines, etc… does the COIN book talk about that?
David Brown
hmmmm… insurgency….
there is an assumption in all this… that is that the government that is subject to the insurgency is legitimate and in some sense deserves to prevail
the second is to consider whether there is a sensible, simple, resolution available
in Thailand the redshirts are asking for democratic elections
as proven in the four objectively free and fair elections that have been held in Thailand in 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007 the people represented by the redshirt movement have shown they are a majority of the people in Thailand
the people represented by the current government were proven to be in the minority
so, who are the insurgents?
please consider