Cambodian-Thai border started gunfire

Remember people, one of the unwritten rule since ASEAN founding is "not to get noisy about member nation's affairs", and it plagued the organization since, hindering its attempt to move up from a regional economic co-op into something akin to EU (I'm not joking, they've such ambition for some time now). So let's put it this way, ASEAN "mediation effort" is pretty much a joke to begin with, but still they've to act for the sake of it.

Finn McCool said:

Part of me thinks that Cambodia could teach Thailand a smart, painful lesson and make Bangkok more disposed towards fair negotiation with a well organized and executed surprise attack against Thailand. The forces would have to be massed incrementally and with attention to stealth. Infiltration of small infantry units over the period of a few hours, at night, throughout the Thai frontlines in Preah Vihear and the surrounding region, then a massive rocket and arty attack followed by ambushes on Thai positions by the infiltrated infantry, and an armored/infantry attack in waves from the border. Secure a little pocket of Thailand, protect it with SAMs and massed artillery back in Cambodia. Perhaps execute a commando-sabotage operation against an important Thai port and/or airbase/s. Send a massive arms shipment to Muslim guerillas in South Thailand. Hit them hard and fast and target their psychology. Make them freak out and sue for peace as the UN and AESAN and US pressure everyone to end the war. Let internal differences in Thailand erupt.

Click to expand...

Do you seriously have any idea what you're talking about? The disputed region have a UNESCO world heritage site, which itself a centerpiece to this whole conflict. Conflicts that escalate in the area would unavoidably put that within the firing line. Of course damage to it would put both nations negatively in world opinion, and how difficult for it to be undamaged in all this? That's a very small region and they actually damaged it during the previous engagements, and all you need is like, say, a strayed artillery barrage...

And support the Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand? Are you that ignorant not to know those insurgents are recognized as terrorists, Al-Qaeda linked types? And doing so would only hurt Cambodia's interest and worse, lose support in world's opinion.

Finn McCool said:

The other part of me thinks that perhaps Thailand has more resolve than I think it does. This part of me also wonders if Cambodia is capable of such an operation.

Click to expand...

That's because they've no choice, back down in any manner would risk either a popular uprising or coup, the last thing the Thai government needs right now, especially when the political unrest last year hurt the tourism industry badly, they just can't afford another one to shut down the cities once again.

SteelBird said:

Hi, delft. Your speech sounds like a song. Unfortunately, the Thai has no sincerity to solve the dispute peacefully at all. You wanna prove it? When Cambodia calls for a third party to mediate the dispute, Thailand refuses it and want to solve the dispute bilaterally. So, what means solving the dispute bilaterally? To fight until one side kneels down and beg for mercy, and Thailand have full confidence that they will be the winner.

I understand

Click to expand...

I think if it ever escalates to more than just skirmishes, the game would change dramatically. I can't see Thailand risking international sanctions by starting a war over this, although Cambodia should be wary not to get provoked into escalating this themselves, thereby providing justification to Thailand.

Something I don't understand is, WHY are they fighting at all? What do they hope to gain, either side? If, for the sake of argument, we suppose that Thailand is the initiator, what do they hope to gain from this? A piece of land around the temple? Is there any economic or strategic advantage to gaining that?

solarz said:

I think if it ever escalates to more than just skirmishes, the game would change dramatically. I can't see Thailand risking international sanctions by starting a war over this, although Cambodia should be wary not to get provoked into escalating this themselves, thereby providing justification to Thailand.

Something I don't understand is, WHY are they fighting at all? What do they hope to gain, either side? If, for the sake of argument, we suppose that Thailand is the initiator, what do they hope to gain from this? A piece of land around the temple? Is there any economic or strategic advantage to gaining that?

Click to expand...

As you can see, what lead to recent fighting actually went back more than a century ago.

And what to gain or lose? Besides from owning a tourism asset, most seems to be nationalism pride, at least for the Thais that's the prevailing drive that force the current administration to take a hard-line stance...

MwRYum said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As you can see, what lead to recent fighting actually went back more than a century ago.

And what to gain or lose? Besides from owning a tourism asset, most seems to be nationalism pride, at least for the Thais that's the prevailing drive that force the current administration to take a hard-line stance...

Click to expand...

I can understand nationalist pride, but why resort to armed conflict? What objective do they hope to achieve by using force? The only way for this to be resolved through force is a war, and I doubt either side really wants a war. Therefore, I question how and why these skirmishes started.

solarz said:

I can understand nationalist pride, but why resort to armed conflict? What objective do they hope to achieve by using force? The only way for this to be resolved through force is a war, and I doubt either side really wants a war. Therefore, I question how and why these skirmishes started.

Click to expand...

Thought you'd have figured by now...

What keeps troubling Thailand since the last coup? Thailand is still being squeezed by the political rift (the yellow-shirt vs red-shirt) as well as the constant watchful gaze of the military. So what'd the most common way to divert public opinion?
Start a limited war with your neighbors.
That happened at The Falklands, happens all the time.

MwRYum said:

Do you seriously have any idea what you're talking about? The disputed region have a UNESCO world heritage site, which itself a centerpiece to this whole conflict. Conflicts that escalate in the area would unavoidably put that within the firing line. Of course damage to it would put both nations negatively in world opinion, and how difficult for it to be undamaged in all this? That's a very small region and they actually damaged it during the previous engagements, and all you need is like, say, a strayed artillery barrage...

And support the Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand? Are you that ignorant not to know those insurgents are recognized as terrorists, Al-Qaeda linked types? And doing so would only hurt Cambodia's interest and worse, lose support in world's opinion.

Click to expand...

First let me just clarify that my post about a major Cambodian attack was pretty much just a thought experiment. But I'm sure you can see that, if we set certain premises as givens, an attack becomes an attractive option. Mainly we have to assume that a series of sharp blows to Thai morale would end up destroying Thailand's will to fight, rather than producing the opposite reaction. Secondly we have to assume that Cambodia's military and government is capable of such a thing.

Both of those assumptions are major questions on their own. I'm ignoring that for now. But if we assume both are true, then I start to think "Sometimes a huge roll of the dice plays out well". Sure, it seems like it wouldn't make any sense for Cambodia to launch a major offensive, but doesn't that mean that perhaps the psychological impact would be that much greater if they pulled it off? Victories on the battlefield create their own reality, very fast.

As for questions about shelling the temple and supporting "Al-Qaeda linked types", I think that a successfully conducted war would make those things irrelevant. If, in this hypothetical scenario, the Cambodian Army delivered severe blows to Thailand and precipitated a political crisis in Thailand, international opinion wouldn't matter that much. International opinion didn't stop Russia from achieving its goals in Georgia, which is a similar situation. Victory on the battlefield makes pretty much all political questions move down a notch or two. Any international disapproval Cambodia might receive for temporarily supporting Muslim insurgents in Thailand would be a small price to pay for the chaos they could cause. What's more is that there would undoubtedly be Cambodian civilian casualties too (from Thai air bombardment of Cambodia) who could be paraded in front of cameras to redirect pressure back at Thailand.

I suppose that my entire train of thought can be summed up in one sentence: If you think you can drive a killing blow at the enemy, either by physically destroying him or by exhausting his will to fight, let nothing stop you. Not temples, not treaties, not anything. If you worry too much about international opinion, well, you won't end up doing anything, because the bureaucrat types in the UN and EU and US State Dept. could find something objectionable in just about anything you do. Sympathetic international opinion is only a tool to be used to advance your interests, it's not a goal in and of itself.

Now let's go back and look at the original assumptions my thought experiment was based on. Namely that
(A) Thai resolve to fight would be destroyed by a quick string of Cambodia victories and "publicity stunts" and (B) Cambodia is capable of inflicting such a thing on Thailand. This where interpretation really comes into play, but I would reckon that (A) is true while (B) is not. Thus, a serious escalation is probably not a good option for Cambodia. But hey we can speculate for fun.

I would agree with Finn if Cambodia plans to commit suicide. Believe me, I'm a Cambodian, the deadliest weakness of Cambodia is that it can't afford the war, and Thailand knows it very well. In the first and second clashes, Cambodian prime minister called that a small clash and no big deal. If the Thai soldiers dare to cross the border, Veal Intry will be the grave field for them. Thailand needs 10 soldiers to deal with one battle scared Cambodian soldier, and so on... After the two clashes, the Thai did learn a hard lesson. They suffered from it. They launched a large scale artillery attack on Cambodia although no naval and only threat of using air-force. HS can no longer laugh and call it a war rather a clash. He immediately seeks for a long lasting cease fire from third party mediation. To me, if the clash (or the war) lasts another two months or so, Cambodia might go bankrupt and Thailand can declare victory without the need to invade Cambodia.

SteelBird said:

I would agree with Finn if Cambodia plans to commit suicide. Believe me, I'm a Cambodian, the deadliest weakness of Cambodia is that it can't afford the war, and Thailand knows it very well. In the first and second clashes, Cambodian prime minister called that a small clash and no big deal. If the Thai soldiers dare to cross the border, Veal Intry will be the grave field for them. Thailand needs 10 soldiers to deal with one battle scared Cambodian soldier, and so on... After the two clashes, the Thai did learn a hard lesson. They suffered from it. They launched a large scale artillery attack on Cambodia although no naval and only threat of using air-force. HS can no longer laugh and call it a war rather a clash. He immediately seeks for a long lasting cease fire from third party mediation. To me, if the clash (or the war) lasts another two months or so, Cambodia might go bankrupt and Thailand can declare victory without the need to invade Cambodia.

Click to expand...

I can't agreed more, man...

Finn, let's remember it's ONLY THE BIG BOYS can afford to play outside the rules, nations like Russia, China and US are big bad macho mojos, while the likes of Cambodia is just a skinny poor kid...Cambodia is a poor 3rd world country and its opponent, Thailand, while also a 3rd world nation but in far better shape in many ways. Small countries like Cambodia can't hope to play outside the rules or it'd risk lose everything, and in today's international framework, aiding and abetting terrorists can catch a lot of heat, and Cambodia would lose far more than a patch of land and temple.

For Thailand, as long as they play it carefully they may actually win, so long they can keep the lid on the "yellow shirts" and "red shirts", let not political pressure turned into military blunders.

Finn McCool said:

Now let's go back and look at the original assumptions my thought experiment was based on. Namely that
(A) Thai resolve to fight would be destroyed by a quick string of Cambodia victories and "publicity stunts" and (B) Cambodia is capable of inflicting such a thing on Thailand. This where interpretation really comes into play, but I would reckon that (A) is true while (B) is not. Thus, a serious escalation is probably not a good option for Cambodia. But hey we can speculate for fun.

Click to expand...

I disagree that Thai resolve to fight would be destroyed by a quick string of Cambodia victories. Thailand is the larger country, and they can afford to take a few defeats. Also, nothing unites a country better than an external threat. In such a situation, the Thai King will likely assume the national leadership role and galvanise the country to fight back. It won't be a pretty sight should this come to pass....

what about treaties? Does Cambodia have any mutual-defense treaties with any nations?