why the current war on terror may take longer (than expected)?

July 7, 2010

First of all, I highly appreciate Indonesian anti-terror unit (Densus88) accomplishments to date, in term of their quickness.

Secondly, this “terrorists”  issue is one of the most complicated issue of the century, so I have no intention to offer the solution for this issue since there are many experts are working on this and still quite far from the end solution. And of course, I am far from knowledgable in this issue.

What I want to show (by borrowing from Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline) is that taking ONLY the most obvious solution from the terrorist attack (by attacking them back,kill or  capture & put them into jail) might not resulting the best solution.

As explained by Senge, what seems to be an obvious and logical solution in a our perspective, may not be the best from the holistic  perspective.

Let say there is a bomb exploded in another hotel in Indonesia.

From the government view, an attack by terrorist is a threat to all Indonesian and should be responded aggresively (Pic 1).

From another perspective (of the so called “terrorist” group), their view of the situation is simply responding to the aggresive attack from the anti-terror unit (Pic 2). The more aggresive the government, the more millitant their response. The more recruits they got from the people who shared the same belief.

These two views apparently will build its own “system”. This is a vicious cycle which makes the problem more complicated because what it seems the obvious solution is simply just create a bigger problem (Pic 3).

From the system view, we need to break the cycle. Violence only creates violence, an old say yet we still ignore it.

I have read many articles and experts urged the need to tackle the root cause of the militants movement in the form of mediation and common ground setting (not easy, of course) in addition to the immediate law enforcement. Got to do that.

The quick result will show if we can avoid the prison become “the school” for the new recruits or from the old players to plan another attack.

Advertisements

among Ariel, Gayus, Bibit-Chandra, “Terrorists”, Illegal Logging…which should be prioritized the highest?

June 30, 2010

Call me nuts.

But I’ve read enough Ariel case and Gayus case recently and a question came up in my mind; should these two cases worth the high attention of the law enforcement body?

Before I go further, I must remind all of us  the two rules about life:

  1. It ‘s  always easier being a commentator (like all the football commentators), sit and watch from outside (like us yelled at Rooney), or complaining from the back seat (me to any taxi driver).
  2. Problems are always a lot more than the people who handle it; resources are always limited and expensive. Picking the critical few is the most important. Is it easy? (Answer: No).

Anyway, I spent some time to figure out what matter most for the current SBY administration. I found what should be the government’s Top 15. This is critical to determine what’s important and what less important.

What we should do is to measure the cases most covered nowadays (Ariel case, Gayus case, Bibit-Candra case, “terrorist” like  Azhari, Nordin Top & co, and illegal logging) against the government’s Top 15.

So, if I am the law enforcement institution and have to make priority aligned with the chief executive, these will be the priority:

  1. Illegal logging
  2. Gayus case
  3. Terrorist
  4. Bibit-Candra

Ariel? well…it does not even worth a priority at least at national level, give it to lower institution. As the Top15 mandated, there are just too many more important things which worth the attention and benefit for majority of the tax payers.

How I choose the priority? Here it is:

notes:

1. The prioritization here is just a personal view. In reality, take many people to put the weight and an agreed score for each column. However, the principle is we should always put all the issues against what matter most for our nation (represented by the Top 15).

2. The highest priority should be something that are related to  the top priority (eradication of “mafia law”) or issues which related to many priorities. For instance, the illegal logging case become critical because it relates to mafia law, electricity, food, and disaster