Malaysia vs. Indonesia over who sung what song first and who danced what dance first and well whatever the hell else they're complaining about. They routinely take pot shots at each already from patrol-boats. A big oil strike smack bang on the disputed part of the border and we're laughing.
Malaysia vs. Thailand over Pattani is pretty easy to envision all it would take is PAS victory in the Federal elections followed by another Krue Saeesque
wittery.
bender19 said:
You don't need to take the capital to win, this isn't civilization.
Dude, this isn't civ. You don't go fomenting a rebellion in a province that your government and people are nominally sympathetic just to leave them all to die. Like your suggesting here:
bender19 said:
The threat of loosing the province and mounting losses would force Indonesia to the table, thus obtaining a pointless military victory.
Threat being the operative word, you obviously didn't think that they should or would lose it. Which simply wouldn't happen. It's recognized by the United Nations as an integral part of the Republic of Indonesia courtesy of the (I'll admit dubious) referendum.
bender19 said:
If you're assuming the war has the level of support of Afghanistan or Iraq you're assuming there isn't a war. If it had no public support, or extremely limited public support and was pointless, there would be no war, which is why there probably won't ever be a war. If you're creating a hypothetical that Indonesia and Australia go to war, but have no reason to go to war and are apathetic then you've assumed away the war. In which case the hypothetical becomes redundant. There's no point in hypothetically talking about a war and yet assuming neither side has any will to go to war.
Because assuming unrealistic parameters totally makes for a good hypothetical. Lets just suspend reality entirely eh?
bender19 said:
The reason there's no armed independence movement is because they currently have no hope, hence its confined to passive resistance. Insert Australian army training them and providing weapons while cutting off supply lines and providing air support and its a completely different situation.
Because promising them anything short of independence is totally going to get them to rise. Assuming of course that the 'resistance' is some sort of unitary whole which would rise when you so desired. It isn't. Like anything in Papua its tribe specific and amongst ethnic Papuans resistance can't always be assumed.
Many have benefited from Jakarta due to patronage including the awarding of positions -- elevation as chiefs, headman or elders and positions inside the civil service -- in fiduciary terms -- access to large markets, royalties for resources and loans -- as well as outright bribes. Its a very effective means of ensuring social control while subverting traditional power structures to serve Jakarta's will or to at the very least destroying the credibility of the best possible future leaders -- those with access to education with some degree of 'innate' societal pull. Divide and rule. Its nothing new, the Republic did it, and before them the Dutch, and before them Malacca and before them ma' boys Srivijaya.
bender19 said:
The size actually aids Australia, it means guerilla tactics become far more effective. Guerilla war aren't won by controlling every square kilometre of territory, Afghanistan vs the Soviets, Vietnam vs the US etc show this.
Sure, if Papua wasn't so darn underpopulated that's an entirely valid point. Unfortunately it has a tiny population, strung out across thousands of small villages, often days apart from each with no infrastructure for rapid egress between villages for guerrilla groups. The last part is the real killer, male villagers will not abandon their villages if the TNI can simply waltz up to them and liquidate the population while the boys are away trying to cause trouble. I wasn't making an idle point when I stated the the TNI would simply massacre the remaining male population and burn the village, they did exactly that in Timor and Aceh before they went all nice and just resorted to extra-judicial murder and deaths in custody.
bender19 said:
That works in Aech when they have no form of resistance.
Whut? No resistance? Your comparing GAM to something that's little more than some random acts of violence by pissed off youth? GAM had 3,000 full-time fighters at the cessation of hostilities in 2005 when it demobilized its forces, probably more because it has a brain and wouldn't have given away its precise capabilities just in-case Jakarta tried to play silly-buggers after the fact.
bender19 said:
Its a completely different ball game when you insert a backer.
No, it doesn't. Did you miss the "Colonel's Rebellion" and the proclaiming of the "Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Indonesia" complete with American arms and CIA operatives with Australia and Malaysia riding shotgun on the whole episode?
bender19 said:
The reality is small arms are cheap and easily produced. Indonesia would have a more difficult time arming its militants due to logistical problems.
Er, no. They're already armed or accounted for. It's one of the beauties of cheap and readily available fire arms when married with the extensive counter-insurgency experience of Brimob and Kopassus.
bender19 said:
The decentralised nature of the West Papuans makes guerilla war far easier. If they lived in large towns and cities rounding them up would be very easy.
You don't get it. The
small population is dispersed across a
huge province in thousands of
tiny villages all linked together with
non-existent infrastructure. For reference Vietnam is smaller than East Papua with a population today of 85 million compared to East Papua's paltry 2.64 million. Taken collectively those figures do not help your guerrilla war, it just makes it astonishingly difficult to do anything.
bender19 said:
The Indonesia killed up to 200000 in a 25 year period in East Timor yet they still wanted independence. You assume that a people that already wants independence will cease to if you arm them, because a few will be massacred.
Your talking about Australia fomenting a rebellion in a military controlled province with an ethnic group that are already regarded as little better than monkeys. That's going to go down well. So well in-fact that I'd be prepared to call genocide on the cleanup before they'd even begun. This wouldn't be Timor. There isn't a Jose Ramos Horta to be given a Nobel Prize to. There won't be any Western media presence, there isn't even that now. It would be plain and simple genocide.
bender19 said:
Not really I provide a reason for why after the initial naval and air engagements and the threat of provoking rebellion in West Papua for why Indonesia would likely seek peace. Once the troops are on the ground and you're arming locals you've commited to granting independence. Once troops are on the ground Australia wouldn't be cutting and running. Rather its likely the locals will see the result of East Timor and believe independence is a very real possibility.
In other words you wouldn't actually have Indonesia grant them independence in the terms of any peace. I can
totally see an Australian government signing the death warrants of the Papuan part of the population. I don't believe that Australia is that comically inept.
bender19 said:
Because no one arms the resistance movements.
Yeah, they have. The "Colonels Plot" was rebellion by whole TNI divisions complete with American backing. The aftermath of the collapse of the Republic of the United States of Indonesia saw the Dutch providing arms to separatists in Sulawesi, South Sumatra and Malaku. All were defeated quickly. You can also include the PSI rising in Madiun which got Soviet support if you want and the 30 September Plot which probably got Soviet support if it was actually a PKI plot (and if it wasn't then the clean up surely counts the PKI cadres were armed by the Soviets). If your sporting you can include the counter-revolution by Suharto who got American support as well. The last is the only one that can be considered to have been in the least bit successful.
There simply are not any viable separatist movements left with the balls to try anything.
- The Acehnese exercise de-facto Independence and were pretty badly mauled in the last stages of their little gambit. They can probably sustain operations now, but they don't need to as yet and wouldn't for kaffir - they at least have some pride left.
- The conflict in Central Sulawesi won't restart, the Christians would lose and they know it. They're the ones who support a continued large-scale TNI presence to ensure their safety. Probably because nobody has managed to disarm the thousands of Jihadi's left over from the last bout who have all settled in the South.
- Malaku won't restart either. The Christians are not numerous enough to pose a serious threat and lost all their hardened fighters in the settlement in 67'. They won't try anything now, not with so many Javanese having settled and not after the last time - all 17 years of it.
bender19 said:
I agree it wouldn't last long, Indonesia would capitulate. One of the reasons it wouldn't last long is because long term Australia has a far greater capacity for war.
... er no. Indonesia could pretty easily blockade Australia by cutting if off from Singapore, China, Japan and Korea. That's Australia's markets all but closed. Sure, you could work around it but that would take time. Australia's capacity for war is nil anyway.
bender19 said:
We disagree because you assume Australians wouldn't be commited to the war. Which is true, but this is why there simply wouldn't be a war. In the sane real world the war doesn't occur. You can't both talk about a hypothetical war and assume the conditions for that war occuring don't exist. I'm not sure I can make this any simpler but in your conviction that Australia would never commit to war with Indonesia you've elminated the hypothetical war in the first place.
Incorrect. I could see a war happening but only in ridiculously narrow constraints. A limited sea war at the most. It would be Konfrontasi all over again with none of the ******** Sukarnoesque grandstanding.
Coral said:
You do realize that East Timor was never legally part of Indonesia, and now has full independence? East Timor as an example demonstrates nothing. They were invaded and Indonesia was fully capable of keeping East Timor under permanent occupation. The only reason East Timor is currently independent is because of the Asian Financial Crisis which forced the Indonesians to cut government spending tremendously.
Even if the explanation of the dynamics of the collapse of the Old Order is a bit simplistic.
What's important to note is that FRETLIN was down to all of 500 active fighters and was prepared to surrender before TSHTF and Habibie lost his nerve.
Coral said:
Australia does not have the capability to blockade Papua to prevent Indonesian reinforcements from arriving, nor does Australia have the capability to quickly arm thousands of guerillas and foment mass insurrection. This doesn't even mention that Papua has a sizeable population of nationalist Indonesians who would undoubtedly join the struggle on Indonesia's part and spot any attempt to arm the locals.
Coral said:
And as has been already noted, hundreds of thousands of Papuans would pay the price for any insurrection.
