When I read this Robert’s article, I feel it’s far from local Thai people who support Red Shirt , because we’re far from European fascists or dictator Franco. So, we can’t understand the theory or strategy of tension.
We understand violence and our losses. We can’t run away like Jakrapob and many. When I joined red shirt, we only want to bring back Primeminister Thaksin to help us better life as he said many times. I don’t want to be a victim and someone who runs away ask the victim to fight again and looks down Primeminister Thaksin as nobody. We admire Khun Veera as the real leader who with us till last hour.
Will NM now allow a propagandist employed by the government an equal opportunity to contribute a (presumably) unedited piece on here in the name of balance or has NM come off of the fence to favour one of the players?
If Abhisit thinks the Vietnamese would turn a blind eye to his territorial aggression against their ally I think he’s sadly mistaken.
Thailand, as usual, will bite off more than it can chew.
Ken: Saying motorcycle taxi drivers “have so much power now that they are acting like the mafia themselves” is akin to saying bag ladies rule the streets of Manhattan. You might want to broaden your perspective a bit… as well as stop generalizing.
You are right John. I am a deadbeat. I have given a thumbs up to your comment. My “PhD” does not even deserve inverted commas. Poor rural Thai youths have every right to be angry about my poor bibliographic skills. Tomorrow I will descend from the ivory tower for the last time and start work in a leper colony in Burundi. Goodbye. It was fun while it lasted. AW
I agree with David Brown #8 about the greedy rich businessman, high ranking military man or politician. Those members of Thai society should be a good model for the people, especially politcians. If politicians, who normally close to local people as their leaders, corrupted, didn’t pay tax, hid some wealth with maids or driver, how can people respected them. I agrree that greedy and corrupted politicians, businessmen, goverment staffs is the main problem in Thai society, besides education to make Thai more brain to consider right and wrong with good reason. Violenc, strategy of tension, or fascist or SOE isn’t a real problem for Thai.
Andrew Marshall: “Andrew Walker of the Australian National University, who runs the superb New Mandala blog with Nicholas Farrelly, has written a detailed analysis of rural voting.”
So were is the link to this analysis?
The only link on this page to Reuters goes nowhere roughly one week after it is posted, not exactly state of the art online journalism. No citation to the Marshall article is provided with additional identifying information so Thai students can find the article and in turn cite the article in a paper.
Once again Andrew Walker “PhD” (and by implication Australian National University) has demonstrated they are far far away from the reality of educating poor rural youths in Thailand. Actual practice is a completely different reality from writing academic papers in your head.
In fact, the current exclusive and linear system of western university education most likely guarantees this outcome. Exactly, how many young rural poor people from Southeast Asia do you have pursuing degrees at ANU and I mean degrees like engineering or business that would advance their families up the socio-economic hierarchy?
The only thing for sure is that a bunch of New Mandala flunkies will vote against this comment and any other comment that goes against the standard line and that could simulate more balanced debate. #Fail
This comparison with the Sudetenland is almost completely inappropriate.
The Sudetenland was a sizeable chunk of Czechoslovakia, where a substantial German majority lived. Many – probably the majority – wanted to unite with Hitler’s Reich.
Hitler obtained the Sudetenland by international agreement (though this meant the major powers sold out Czechoslovakia).
The area disputed between Thailand and Cambodia is tiny, few live there (and those that do are mostly a Cambodian influx, at least according to the Thais).
What international agreement there is seems to be swinging Cambodia’s way (i..e reverse of Sudetenland’s story), with UN approval leaning towards Cambodia
Even if the disputed 4.5km was taken over by Thailand, it is highly unlikely this would lead to Cambodia’s dismemberment, whereas the Sudetenland conflict did lead to that fate – very quickly – for Czechoslovakia. Vietnam is highly unlikely to sell-out Hun Sen.
Moreover, the United States has recently started joint military exercises with Cambodia. Hun Sen’s son is a West Point graduate.
There are too many dissimilarities, for the Sudetenland issue to be a useful historical comparison.
But it is a good example of how such inappropriate comparisons from European history are sometimes mistakenly applied to very different situations in Asia. And highlights to some extent, the great difficulty of applying Euro-centric, Western-derived social science notions to a particularly unique history and society such as Thailand.
I’m guessing this is a different version of the Fourth International than the one that Giles belongs to. Not quite as strident possibly, but still seeing things through rose-tinted glasses, seeing them how they would like them to be rather than how they are.
The problem that is always there with Trotskyism is the inability to break from Leninist authoritarianism. Of course Trotsky himself was very much a believer in democratic centralism, but without this and Lenin, Stalin would never have gained power.
However, all the handwaving in the world does not make your viewpoint “objective”. Neither does your insistence that it is “objective” make it so.
You apparently “see things” in a moral rather than political way, which allows you to conveniently dismiss both sides in the recent Thai conflict. And no doubt there is a lot of validity in such a sweeping judgment, if what we are primarily concerned with is morality.
Objectively speaking, however, we are discussing politics, specifically Thai politics. And in regard to Thai politics, I have no western agenda.
A rather large number of the Thai “masses” have recently expressed their frustration at having been disenfranchised. Tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of them have expressed a wish to return to democratic procedure, namely elections, to choose a government for Thailand. Or so they appeared to be saying. Some of them have gone so far as to give their lives in the process of making these demands.
By listening to them, which would necessarily involve taking them at their word, I have gotten the distinct impression that they want democracy in Thailand. I support them in that. I agree with them that what they have at the present time is not a democracy. I can’t agree that my respect for and acceptance of their viewpoint constitutes a “western agenda”.
You appear to think that by dismissing the “masses” as mere tools in the hands of people whose goals are not democratic you are thereby “listening” to them. By knowing better than they do what is happening and who, including them, wants what, you are “being objective” and expressing your “broad view” of the world.
The real commentary shouldn’t be about inflicting your western political models on the Thai people, what you should be doing is actually listening to the people and what they want.
How can we do that when a 16 years old student who dare enough to speak and think differently was sent to mental hospital? The only way to know what people is thinking is trough ballot boxes and the only group of people that had been demanding just that got murdered in cold blood.
When you said western ideology is not going to work with Thailand, it just beg me to compare UK and Japan. Both countries got nothing in common culturally, but both got political system are running the country quite similarly so can Thailand follow the Eastern country like Japan instead?
With the information provided, the assumptions leading to the conclusion drawn in this argument remain unfounded. The author uses the evidence that there has been an attempt for reemergence of the Communist Party of Thailand for class struggle after abandoning its activities thirty years ago. The author bases this conclusion mostly on evidence from the recent political movement of the Red Shirts. The author’s argument remains unconvincing because of significant unsupported assumptions and because of poorly defined vocabulary. First, he assumes that there is no other explanation for the Thai political crises other than left versus right. The assumption is particularly difficult to accept since there is no evidence provided. In order to have a reader accept this assumption, the author might provide evidence such as a survey showing that the Red Shirts members are former communist members. Implicitly, the author is trying to paint the progressive grassroots democratic Red Shirts movement as communists. The author’s purpose is to divert the United States away from supporting the democratic movement in Thailand by painting the Red Shirts as communists.
Furthermore, the author continues to direct his political agenda in directing hatred toward Thaksin by saying, “Thaksin is no democrat. Thaksin is a capitalist.” It is intended to mobilize the liberal against Thaksin; taking away Thaksin’s political base. In short, the author’s fear is grassroots’ support of Thaksin and the Red Shirts movement.
Lastly, after giving in-depth analysis of the Thai political history and conflicts, it becomes crystal clear to me that the author’s framework of analysis is in fact based on the conflict between the Allies versus the Axis, e.g. the revolution of 1932, the death of Ananda Mahidol, Phumipon acceded to the thrown in 1946, the 1973 topple of Thanom, Chatchai came to power in 1988, the 1991 coup, and 2006 coup, etc.
In conclusion, the author does not give his readers a well-supported argument. The argument contains a large number of assumptions that are not properly validated. Because of this, the argument remains unconvincing.
Debating and exchanging ideas on whether the Thais are politically educated enough to have a grip on the politics of the land.
The following truism make the debate relevant:
1)Thailand has enjoy over 300 years of relatively upheaval-less governance. (Sine the sacking of Ayuthaya by the Burmese until now)
2)Thailand has one of an enviable Asian economy that can withstand/support any forms of government.
3)This very economy was a fallout/ blessings from USA led war against its neighbor Vietnam and now the useless careless economic war against another neighboring government, Myanmar.
In spite of a system that afford every Thais a free education one will find it hard to understand why there are not more Thais who speak English in say Bangkok compared to other similarly country such as say Singapore.
Or why not much westerners friendly signs everywhere even though most tourist are from the west.
Knowing most important political thoughts and dialogue are in English or rather none Thai.
Debating on the Thai masses grasp/education on politics of present upheaval among the Thais from the westerner point of view without regard to on the ground realities!
The connection to Andrew Marshall article on Politics and education?
Self governance in various forms, that is supported by an enviable economy for over 300 years.
Thaksin has prolonged the period by 30+years dealing with Myanmar despots.
Enriching himself tremendously on the way, while fueling Thai economy with one side deals that favor the Thais as well as temporarily pacifying the general’s.
Talk to any rural Thai and they will recall fondly Thanksin’s “care for the poor”.
A reason to why the recent red/yellow clashes.
Point well made by Ko Moe Aung #14 #20 #29
Given the ongoing reality in Myanmar that make truism 2,3 in favor of the Thais for a while longer how long do the New Mandala Readers believe can truism #1 continue indefinitely?
Wouldn’t Andrew Marshall article debated here be rather academic without the certainty of truism #1 continuing?
Emjay, so, to be clear, you are condemning me because I try to see things in an objective way? I strongly believe that the problem with the western red shirt faction is that they cannot see the wood from the trees. You, and your brethren, compound the problems by failing to see the real issues, as the Thai people see them. You bring your western philosophies, and agendas, and transpose them onto a political scene which is, quite frankly, different. When things are not to your liking, you throw around western political rhetoric in the hope that someone is listening. Unfortunately, in Thailand, no-one is listening. This conflict doesn’t suit your narrow view of the world and its politics.
The real commentary shouldn’t be about inflicting your western political models on the Thai people, what you should be doing is actually listening to the people and what they want. Go talk to the folks in the trenches, and don’t do, as Jim Taylor appears to be doing, talk to a fringe minority. The heartlands are full of people who will give their opinions and, unfortunately for you, the ‘masses’ do not agree with your western agenda. Ok, this is very anecdotal from me, but give it a try, go speak to the people. You might be surprised by the views.
You are not the only one here who NM’s moderators decided not to post the comment on, I got that from time to time also, but I felt like the reason why they did that was because the discussion was going to where and that it could potentially turn out nasty and what not.
Why would the fugitive Mr. Thaksin retain Robert Amsterdam as his lawyer, where can Mr. Amersterdam practise law ? Canada? UK? The fugitive red-shirt leader Jakrapob Penkair has stated that Mr. Thaksin is distancing himself from the Red Shirts and he is only an Iconic Figure. Since the time of the rumours that Mr. Thaksin had died in late April, we have never seen Mr.Thaksin live on TV and he has never been mobbed by the international press anywhere like before. Nothing happened in Paris. No interviews. Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. The real question is, who will be the New Leader, or new parties? Thailnd has a bright future but the rule of law and honesty must be followed.
Suzie Wong #2 re:
“Now, in the post-Cold War world context, the network monarchy government (military, monarchy, and Aphisit government) is confident to pursue the “showdown” option with Cambodia because Cambodia has no backing.”
1) Hun Sen is backed by Vietnam – there is no way Vietnam will allow Hun Sen to be defeated – or even suffer humiliation which could lead to his overthrow.
2) “and Thailand’s military force is far superior.” Not compared to Vietnam, it is not !
Hun Sen’s troop could easily hold the line against Thailand (remember many of them are battle-hardened Khmer Rouge) against Thailand’s inexperienced troops, until Vietnamese reinforcements arrived.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Robert Amsterdam on a “Strategy of Tension” in Bangkok
When I read this Robert’s article, I feel it’s far from local Thai people who support Red Shirt , because we’re far from European fascists or dictator Franco. So, we can’t understand the theory or strategy of tension.
We understand violence and our losses. We can’t run away like Jakrapob and many. When I joined red shirt, we only want to bring back Primeminister Thaksin to help us better life as he said many times. I don’t want to be a victim and someone who runs away ask the victim to fight again and looks down Primeminister Thaksin as nobody. We admire Khun Veera as the real leader who with us till last hour.
Robert Amsterdam on a “Strategy of Tension” in Bangkok
Will NM now allow a propagandist employed by the government an equal opportunity to contribute a (presumably) unedited piece on here in the name of balance or has NM come off of the fence to favour one of the players?
Abhisit’s territorial rite
If Abhisit thinks the Vietnamese would turn a blind eye to his territorial aggression against their ally I think he’s sadly mistaken.
Thailand, as usual, will bite off more than it can chew.
Interview with Claudio Sopranzetti: The politics of motorcycle taxis
Ken: Saying motorcycle taxi drivers “have so much power now that they are acting like the mafia themselves” is akin to saying bag ladies rule the streets of Manhattan. You might want to broaden your perspective a bit… as well as stop generalizing.
Andrew Marshall on politics and education
You are right John. I am a deadbeat. I have given a thumbs up to your comment. My “PhD” does not even deserve inverted commas. Poor rural Thai youths have every right to be angry about my poor bibliographic skills. Tomorrow I will descend from the ivory tower for the last time and start work in a leper colony in Burundi. Goodbye. It was fun while it lasted. AW
Robert Amsterdam on a “Strategy of Tension” in Bangkok
I agree with David Brown #8 about the greedy rich businessman, high ranking military man or politician. Those members of Thai society should be a good model for the people, especially politcians. If politicians, who normally close to local people as their leaders, corrupted, didn’t pay tax, hid some wealth with maids or driver, how can people respected them. I agrree that greedy and corrupted politicians, businessmen, goverment staffs is the main problem in Thai society, besides education to make Thai more brain to consider right and wrong with good reason. Violenc, strategy of tension, or fascist or SOE isn’t a real problem for Thai.
Andrew Marshall on politics and education
Andrew Marshall: “Andrew Walker of the Australian National University, who runs the superb New Mandala blog with Nicholas Farrelly, has written a detailed analysis of rural voting.”
So were is the link to this analysis?
The only link on this page to Reuters goes nowhere roughly one week after it is posted, not exactly state of the art online journalism. No citation to the Marshall article is provided with additional identifying information so Thai students can find the article and in turn cite the article in a paper.
Once again Andrew Walker “PhD” (and by implication Australian National University) has demonstrated they are far far away from the reality of educating poor rural youths in Thailand. Actual practice is a completely different reality from writing academic papers in your head.
In fact, the current exclusive and linear system of western university education most likely guarantees this outcome. Exactly, how many young rural poor people from Southeast Asia do you have pursuing degrees at ANU and I mean degrees like engineering or business that would advance their families up the socio-economic hierarchy?
The only thing for sure is that a bunch of New Mandala flunkies will vote against this comment and any other comment that goes against the standard line and that could simulate more balanced debate. #Fail
Abhisit’s territorial rite
This comparison with the Sudetenland is almost completely inappropriate.
The Sudetenland was a sizeable chunk of Czechoslovakia, where a substantial German majority lived. Many – probably the majority – wanted to unite with Hitler’s Reich.
Hitler obtained the Sudetenland by international agreement (though this meant the major powers sold out Czechoslovakia).
The area disputed between Thailand and Cambodia is tiny, few live there (and those that do are mostly a Cambodian influx, at least according to the Thais).
What international agreement there is seems to be swinging Cambodia’s way (i..e reverse of Sudetenland’s story), with UN approval leaning towards Cambodia
Even if the disputed 4.5km was taken over by Thailand, it is highly unlikely this would lead to Cambodia’s dismemberment, whereas the Sudetenland conflict did lead to that fate – very quickly – for Czechoslovakia. Vietnam is highly unlikely to sell-out Hun Sen.
Moreover, the United States has recently started joint military exercises with Cambodia. Hun Sen’s son is a West Point graduate.
There are too many dissimilarities, for the Sudetenland issue to be a useful historical comparison.
But it is a good example of how such inappropriate comparisons from European history are sometimes mistakenly applied to very different situations in Asia. And highlights to some extent, the great difficulty of applying Euro-centric, Western-derived social science notions to a particularly unique history and society such as Thailand.
French communist on Thai politics
I’m guessing this is a different version of the Fourth International than the one that Giles belongs to. Not quite as strident possibly, but still seeing things through rose-tinted glasses, seeing them how they would like them to be rather than how they are.
The problem that is always there with Trotskyism is the inability to break from Leninist authoritarianism. Of course Trotsky himself was very much a believer in democratic centralism, but without this and Lenin, Stalin would never have gained power.
ABC Interview with Jakrapob
goo stewart #19
I’m sorry you felt “condemned” by my post.
However, all the handwaving in the world does not make your viewpoint “objective”. Neither does your insistence that it is “objective” make it so.
You apparently “see things” in a moral rather than political way, which allows you to conveniently dismiss both sides in the recent Thai conflict. And no doubt there is a lot of validity in such a sweeping judgment, if what we are primarily concerned with is morality.
Objectively speaking, however, we are discussing politics, specifically Thai politics. And in regard to Thai politics, I have no western agenda.
A rather large number of the Thai “masses” have recently expressed their frustration at having been disenfranchised. Tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of them have expressed a wish to return to democratic procedure, namely elections, to choose a government for Thailand. Or so they appeared to be saying. Some of them have gone so far as to give their lives in the process of making these demands.
By listening to them, which would necessarily involve taking them at their word, I have gotten the distinct impression that they want democracy in Thailand. I support them in that. I agree with them that what they have at the present time is not a democracy. I can’t agree that my respect for and acceptance of their viewpoint constitutes a “western agenda”.
You appear to think that by dismissing the “masses” as mere tools in the hands of people whose goals are not democratic you are thereby “listening” to them. By knowing better than they do what is happening and who, including them, wants what, you are “being objective” and expressing your “broad view” of the world.
I respectfully disagree.
ABC Interview with Jakrapob
goo_stewart – 19
The real commentary shouldn’t be about inflicting your western political models on the Thai people, what you should be doing is actually listening to the people and what they want.
How can we do that when a 16 years old student who dare enough to speak and think differently was sent to mental hospital? The only way to know what people is thinking is trough ballot boxes and the only group of people that had been demanding just that got murdered in cold blood.
When you said western ideology is not going to work with Thailand, it just beg me to compare UK and Japan. Both countries got nothing in common culturally, but both got political system are running the country quite similarly so can Thailand follow the Eastern country like Japan instead?
French communist on Thai politics
With the information provided, the assumptions leading to the conclusion drawn in this argument remain unfounded. The author uses the evidence that there has been an attempt for reemergence of the Communist Party of Thailand for class struggle after abandoning its activities thirty years ago. The author bases this conclusion mostly on evidence from the recent political movement of the Red Shirts. The author’s argument remains unconvincing because of significant unsupported assumptions and because of poorly defined vocabulary. First, he assumes that there is no other explanation for the Thai political crises other than left versus right. The assumption is particularly difficult to accept since there is no evidence provided. In order to have a reader accept this assumption, the author might provide evidence such as a survey showing that the Red Shirts members are former communist members. Implicitly, the author is trying to paint the progressive grassroots democratic Red Shirts movement as communists. The author’s purpose is to divert the United States away from supporting the democratic movement in Thailand by painting the Red Shirts as communists.
Furthermore, the author continues to direct his political agenda in directing hatred toward Thaksin by saying, “Thaksin is no democrat. Thaksin is a capitalist.” It is intended to mobilize the liberal against Thaksin; taking away Thaksin’s political base. In short, the author’s fear is grassroots’ support of Thaksin and the Red Shirts movement.
Lastly, after giving in-depth analysis of the Thai political history and conflicts, it becomes crystal clear to me that the author’s framework of analysis is in fact based on the conflict between the Allies versus the Axis, e.g. the revolution of 1932, the death of Ananda Mahidol, Phumipon acceded to the thrown in 1946, the 1973 topple of Thanom, Chatchai came to power in 1988, the 1991 coup, and 2006 coup, etc.
In conclusion, the author does not give his readers a well-supported argument. The argument contains a large number of assumptions that are not properly validated. Because of this, the argument remains unconvincing.
Andrew Marshall on politics and education
Debating and exchanging ideas on whether the Thais are politically educated enough to have a grip on the politics of the land.
The following truism make the debate relevant:
1)Thailand has enjoy over 300 years of relatively upheaval-less governance. (Sine the sacking of Ayuthaya by the Burmese until now)
2)Thailand has one of an enviable Asian economy that can withstand/support any forms of government.
3)This very economy was a fallout/ blessings from USA led war against its neighbor Vietnam and now the useless careless economic war against another neighboring government, Myanmar.
In spite of a system that afford every Thais a free education one will find it hard to understand why there are not more Thais who speak English in say Bangkok compared to other similarly country such as say Singapore.
Or why not much westerners friendly signs everywhere even though most tourist are from the west.
Knowing most important political thoughts and dialogue are in English or rather none Thai.
Debating on the Thai masses grasp/education on politics of present upheaval among the Thais from the westerner point of view without regard to on the ground realities!
The connection to Andrew Marshall article on Politics and education?
Self governance in various forms, that is supported by an enviable economy for over 300 years.
Thaksin has prolonged the period by 30+years dealing with Myanmar despots.
Enriching himself tremendously on the way, while fueling Thai economy with one side deals that favor the Thais as well as temporarily pacifying the general’s.
Talk to any rural Thai and they will recall fondly Thanksin’s “care for the poor”.
A reason to why the recent red/yellow clashes.
Point well made by Ko Moe Aung #14 #20 #29
Given the ongoing reality in Myanmar that make truism 2,3 in favor of the Thais for a while longer how long do the New Mandala Readers believe can truism #1 continue indefinitely?
Wouldn’t Andrew Marshall article debated here be rather academic without the certainty of truism #1 continuing?
French communist on Thai politics
Despite being from the Fourth International, still a decent write-up.
ABC Interview with Jakrapob
Emjay, so, to be clear, you are condemning me because I try to see things in an objective way? I strongly believe that the problem with the western red shirt faction is that they cannot see the wood from the trees. You, and your brethren, compound the problems by failing to see the real issues, as the Thai people see them. You bring your western philosophies, and agendas, and transpose them onto a political scene which is, quite frankly, different. When things are not to your liking, you throw around western political rhetoric in the hope that someone is listening. Unfortunately, in Thailand, no-one is listening. This conflict doesn’t suit your narrow view of the world and its politics.
The real commentary shouldn’t be about inflicting your western political models on the Thai people, what you should be doing is actually listening to the people and what they want. Go talk to the folks in the trenches, and don’t do, as Jim Taylor appears to be doing, talk to a fringe minority. The heartlands are full of people who will give their opinions and, unfortunately for you, the ‘masses’ do not agree with your western agenda. Ok, this is very anecdotal from me, but give it a try, go speak to the people. You might be surprised by the views.
Robert Amsterdam on a “Strategy of Tension” in Bangkok
LesAbbey – 28
You are not the only one here who NM’s moderators decided not to post the comment on, I got that from time to time also, but I felt like the reason why they did that was because the discussion was going to where and that it could potentially turn out nasty and what not.
Abhisit’s territorial rite
Is this going to be Thailand’s version of Sudetenland?
I’m almost certain that the Dem dare to wage a war with Cambodia just to flame Thaksin as an instigator.
Robert Amsterdam on a “Strategy of Tension” in Bangkok
Why would the fugitive Mr. Thaksin retain Robert Amsterdam as his lawyer, where can Mr. Amersterdam practise law ? Canada? UK? The fugitive red-shirt leader Jakrapob Penkair has stated that Mr. Thaksin is distancing himself from the Red Shirts and he is only an Iconic Figure. Since the time of the rumours that Mr. Thaksin had died in late April, we have never seen Mr.Thaksin live on TV and he has never been mobbed by the international press anywhere like before. Nothing happened in Paris. No interviews. Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. The real question is, who will be the New Leader, or new parties? Thailnd has a bright future but the rule of law and honesty must be followed.
Abhisit’s territorial rite
Suzie Wong #2 re:
“Now, in the post-Cold War world context, the network monarchy government (military, monarchy, and Aphisit government) is confident to pursue the “showdown” option with Cambodia because Cambodia has no backing.”
1) Hun Sen is backed by Vietnam – there is no way Vietnam will allow Hun Sen to be defeated – or even suffer humiliation which could lead to his overthrow.
2) “and Thailand’s military force is far superior.” Not compared to Vietnam, it is not !
Hun Sen’s troop could easily hold the line against Thailand (remember many of them are battle-hardened Khmer Rouge) against Thailand’s inexperienced troops, until Vietnamese reinforcements arrived.
Robert Amsterdam on a “Strategy of Tension” in Bangkok
Perhaps New Mandala readers may appreciate this alternative explanation of the political thinking driving the recent clandestine terrorist atrocities-
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE13Ae01.html
Or perhaps they will just point their fingers in unison and scream PAAAAAAAD! in a manner reminiscent of the ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ movie.