Mainly terrorism in Indonesia: catch all

[Mark O'Neill]

I have known Zack and Rohan for a number of years and based on my experiences in SE Asia they are very knowledgable - Zack particularly has great access to the MILF and MNLF in the Philippines.

You will note that I specifically mentioned JI. I did not offer any opinion on the Southern Philippines or any of the groups there.

I stand by my statement.

[max161]

You will note that I specifically mentioned JI. I did not offer any opinion on the Southern Philippines or any of the groups there.

I stand by my statement.

Well the JI is here in the Philippines and from my first hand knowledge of Zack's and Rohan's work I believe that they do know what they are talking about and other SE Asia experts, operators and analysts, that I know and work with in Indonesia and throughout the region respect highly their work as well.

I stand by my statements.

[Mark O'Neill]

Hi David,

I think it is important that people understand that there are a lot of quite different interpretations of what is happening in SE Asia other than those being offered by these two men.

That is not to say that they should not be heard - far from it - just that what they say should be evaluated against both credible criticisms, and some knowledge of their positions and backgrounds. The problem at the moment that I see (as foreshadowed in my previous post) is that the 'popular media' (and some government and defence agencies) has to date almost uncritically swallowed hook line and sinker whatever these men publish.

There are two parts to developing such a picture. First is establishing the veracity or otherwise of what they write. Second is understanding their motivations and or support.

For the first part, I note that I am relying in part here on a recent seminar conducted by Prof Carl Thayer (who at one point Abuza has acknowledged as a form of mentor on SE Asia) at the Defence and Security Applications Research Centre at the Australian Defence Force Academy.

I have also spoken at length to credible regional experts based here in Australia and the region regarding both authors works.... perhaps / probably even some of the same people you refer to .

I have only relied on open source, unclassified material in forming my concerns.

There is a body of literature critical of the techniques and analysis employed by both authors. These criticisms have been published in refereed journals( World Politics, Critical Asian Studies, Survival and South -East Asian Affairs) as well as regional newspapers such as the Jakarta Post.

I have distilled down these criticisms into the two main ones made openly:

1. Both authors make unsubstantiated claims. This normally involves only citing 'Intelligence sources". Byman on Gunaratna's Inside Al Qaeda "Although it often overwhelms the reader in detail , many of its key claims... are unsupported. In addition, it often relies on intelligence reporting without so much of a hint of whether the material is from an interview, a document , or a media leak. Other claims by Gunaratna deserve additional substantiation..."

2. Abuza lacks sufficient knowledge of Islam, Arabic, Indonesian or Malaya and Islam in SE Asia in general (The Jakarta Post). This leads to excessive reliance on secondary sources . Tim Huxley on Militant Islam: "It reads largely like a rough, unedited first draft, replete with inappropriate and factual inaccuracies". Kit Collier on the same work: " It is tedious to recount the numerous errors of fact, spelling, and interpretation that plague Abuza's work. This may explain why there has been so little published criticism of it. For country specialists, these errors expose a weak grounding in history, geography, and culture of the peoples described. Unfortunately, the errors are reproduced by other regionalists drawing on Abuza'.

It should be noted that prior to becoming an SE Asia Islamic terror 'expert' post 9 -11, Abuza's substantive academic knowledge was in other parts of Asia. He was not an Islamic scholar.

I have also heard both men speak at seminars. I have questioned Abuza about some of his assertions with regard to the (to date) unsubstantiated claims he has offered about JI's alleged or likely role in Southern Thailand. He could not offer any proof of the claims made and basically admitted it was in fact largely speculation based on what seemed plausible.

I have no problem with admitting the 'possible' plausibility of his points - they are highly plausible in this instance - but that does not make them fact. I have serious concerns when a man regarded as a credible figure is making assertions based on speculation.

Two weeks ago I had a substantial discussion with Sidney Jones from the ICG. She basically offered a diametrically opposed view of JI ,and its current abilities, to that offered by Abuza in Political Islam and Violence in Indonesia. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the subject matter to have arrived at a definitive personal opinion, but the differences that arose were striking and again gave me cause to question the certainty that Abuza offers in his opinions.

The second point was with regard to where both men are coming 'from'. Gunaratna's organisation receives a significant amount of support from his national government. It would reasonably be expected that this shapes certain things with regard to perceptions and message delivery. Likewise, Abuza receives / has received quite large sums of money from various think tanks and organisations in the US, some of whom are neither independent or non-partisan. All messages need to be interpreted against the background knowledge of who is paying for their production (and why).

Finally, both men make money from selling books. Books that do not sell do not make money. Since 9/11 very few authors have gone broke by inflating the threat of terrorism....


regards,

Mark

[max161]

Finally, both men make money from selling books. Books that do not sell do not make money. Since 9/11 very few authors have gone broke by inflating the threat of terrorism....


regards,

Mark

Excellent points and certainly you have provided a useful perspective. Thank you. However, in Zack's defense I would offer that the books he has written do not sell well. He has not made a lot of money from his books. But I appreciate your analysis and perspective though I find Zack's first person sources from actually meeting with and interviewing key figures on both sides in SE Asia to be very valuable.

V/R,

Dave