| Submit your comments on this article |
| Southeast Asia |
| Thailand having a successful surge of their own |
| 2008-08-20 |
| Applying proven techniques. :-) Hattip Instapundit A Thai-style surge campaign, and change in counter-insurgency strategy, has lead to more than 50 percent reduction in violence in the first 6 months of 2008. Terrorism over the previous 4 years was threatening to get out of control, with some areas becoming no-go zone areas. In 2004, there was a dramatic upsurge in the violence perpetrated by Islamic terrorists in the three southern provinces ("Deep South") of Thailand which border Malaysia. The population of these three provinces is 1.8 million and Muslims make up around 75% of the population whereas the rest of Thailand is 95% Buddhist. From January 2004 until December 2007 there had been average of 160 terrorist incidents (assassinations, bombings etc) per month in the Deep South, but this reduced significantly to less than 60 incidents per month in the first 6 months of 2008. The number of killed or injured had gradually increased from 120 per month in 2004 to 200 a month in 2007, but this has halved to 100 per month in the first 6 months of 2008. After the September 2006 military coup there was a continued increase in troop numbers, raids and detention of suspected terrorists, and a more consistent security policy compared with what existed under the deposed government which had been known for its hard line approach. However, it was not until a new army chief (the coup leader reached retirement age in September) was appointed in October 2007 that we saw a greater increase in numbers. There are now over 100,000 security personnel in the Deep South. The main reason for the drop in the violence was a change in counter-insurgency strategy with a more unified command structure. No longer were security personnel confined to the barracks and being on the defensive. Patrols became more regular and larger in number. As most of the terrorists operate in cells of 8 or less, the increased number of troops on patrols has meant that when the security forces have been ambushed, they have the numbers to fight back. For example, in May 2008, there were 18 ambushes on such patrols, but security forces only suffered one casualty and 8 injuries. On the other hand, the security forces themselves killed 25 terrorists in the first 6 months of 2008. Raids with hundreds of personnel were also conducted in major terrorist strongholds and areas where cordoned off while houses and people were searched. Instead of arbitrarily detaining large numbers of villagers for 7 days at a military base for questioning and then for months at re-education camps, forensic equipment was now used to test for explosive residue and fingerprints were checked on the spot. Those who were not involved were released which has lead to better relations with the local community. Tip-offs started to increase and security forces now regularly find caches of weapons and training camps on raids. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #4 Rumsfeld was being disingenuous when he suggested that less troops was better. Given Uncle Sam's prodigious logistical capabilities, more troops are always better. The problem was that more troops in Afghanistan would have taken away from operations in Iraq. And a bigger overall army would have taken money away from important weapons programs - necessary for fighting big opponents like China and Russia - that had been deferred for over a decade. Basically, Bush decided to fight the war on the cheap, and Rumsfeld had to cover for him by making trade-offs between force size and new equipment. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-08-20 18:06 |
| #3 Apparently we'll be sending some 12,000 more troops to buttress the effort in Afghanistan, starting in November (3 brigades plus support). link |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-08-20 09:09 |
| #2 The major cause of the surge success was the defection of thousands of Sunnis from the insurgency to the Awakening Councils and Sons of Iraq. If something similar happens in Thailand, it might be meaningful, otherwise it is likely to be a lull in the fighting as the insurgency modifies its tactics. |
| Posted by: Cherelet and Tenille1095 2008-08-20 03:25 |
| #1 I think we can learn a lesson from this in Afghanistan too, where 9 soldiers were killed a week back, saying they were outnumber by 200+ gun men on three sides. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/19/afghan.attack.survivor/index.html We also saw our operations in Iraq improve as more men were on the ground. A leaner Army is great for assaults and cost but more troops speak for them self when we have to patrol areas full of scum hiding within the population. |
| Posted by: WAMA 2008-08-20 02:02 |