Article Sidebar

Download
Download Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

Contemporary separatism no longer works in one domain: armed violence, narrative building in the international arena, and exploitation of development gaps as a recruitment base operates simultaneously. Defense responses that target only the physical domain experience structural deficits that cannot be overcome by increasing combat capacity. Basically, this study aims to identify patterns of failure to adapt land defense doctrines in the face of hybrid-separatist threats in Indonesia and the Philippines, as well as formulate the most institutionally realistic transformation prerequisites. This study uses a comparative case study design with the logic of most-similar systems and process tracing methods, with data sourced from official doctrinal documents, International Crisis Group reports, IISS, SIPRI, and relevant academic literature. The results of the study show that the TNI-AD and AFP face a similar pattern of structural failure even though they are taken through different paths: The Regional Command holds the architectural potential of community-based early detection that has never been connected to a multi-domain threat management system, while the Bayanihan IPSP offers a conceptually robust whole-of-nation framework but is not successfully operationalized consistently and does not have an adaptation mechanism to shifting actors partial post-peace threat. The study concludes that doctrinal transformation (not the addition of resources) is a key prerequisite for successful strategic adaptation, and that the most realistic solution lies in expanding the scope of doctrine in existing systems, rather than establishing new institutional structures.

Keywords

Hybrid Threats Separatism Comparative Land Defense Territorial Command IPSP Bayanihan Doctrinal Transformation

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Asshiddiky, R. (2026). Beyond Conventional Responses: Comparative Land Defense Strategy Against the Hybrid-Separatist Threat In Indonesia and the Philippines. Golden Ratio of Social Science and Education, 6(2), 426–434. https://doi.org/10.52970/grsse.v6i2.2480
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abuza, Z. (2022). Militant Islam in Southeast Asia: Reconfigurations in the post-caliphate era. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 45(2), 112–138.
  2. Acharya, A. (2021). The myth of ASEAN centrality and the challenge of hybrid security threats in Southeast Asia. International Affairs, 97(5), 1305–1322.
  3. Argueta, R. L. (2023). Doctrinal adaptation and its limits: The Armed Forces of the Philippines after the Bangsamoro peace process. Asian Security, 19(2), 134–158.
  4. Bapat, N. A., & Zeigler, S. (2023). Peace agreements, splinter groups, and the reconfiguration of separatist threats. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 67(4), 712–741.
  5. Blannin, P. (2022). Online radicalisation and its implications for counter-terrorism in Southeast Asia. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 33(3), 456–481.
  6. Chalk, P., & Ungerer, C. (2022). Southeast Asian separatism in the age of hybrid conflict. Terrorism and Political Violence, 34(5), 901–921.
  7. Croissant, A., & Kuehn, D. (2021). Civil-military relations and security sector governance in Asia. Democratization, 28(5), 865–884.
  8. De Castro, R. C. (2022). The AFP internal peace and security plan and counter-insurgency in Mindanao. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 44(1), 55–82.
  9. Duffield, M. (2001). Global governance and the new wars: The merging of development and security. Zed Books.
  10. Emmers, R. (2021). ASEAN’s role in managing territorial disputes and separatist conflicts in Southeast Asia. Pacific Review, 34(2), 183–207.
  11. Hernawan, B. (2022). Decolonisation narratives and the internationalisation of the Papua conflict. Pacific Affairs, 95(3), 503–528.
  12. Hoffman, F. G. (2007). Conflict in the 21st century: The rise of hybrid wars. Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
  13. Karnavian, M. T., Laksmana, E. A., & Mietzner, M. (2021). Security, development and separatism in Papua: Structural drivers and policy constraints. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 43(3), 451–480.
  14. Laksmana, E. A. (2021). Reshaping the Indonesian military after the New Order. Armed Forces & Society, 47(1), 83–108.
  15. Mello, P. A., & Ostergaard, M. (2021). Civil-military relations and doctrinal reform in Southeast Asia: Between aspiration and implementation. Armed Forces & Society, 47(4), 823–849.
  16. Pamment, J., & Ramsay, G. (2023). Counter-narrative strategy and the cognitive domain of hybrid conflict: Evidence from Southeast Asia. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 34(1), 45–72.
  17. Pedrosa, J. A., & Galvez, R. M. (2022). Military doctrinal reform in the Asia-Pacific: Institutional pathways and adaptation constraints. Journal of Strategic Studies, 45(3), 389–418.
  18. Quimpo, N. G. (2021). The Bangsamoro peace process and the challenge of armed splinter groups. Conflict, Security & Development, 21(3), 267–291.
  19. Renz, B. (2022). Hybrid warfare and the changing character of armed conflict in the Indo-Pacific. Survival, 64(2), 119–138.
  20. Sedra, M. (2022). Silo pathology and the governance of hybrid security threats: Institutional fragmentation in fragile states. Conflict, Security & Development, 22(5), 501–527.
  21. Singh, B. (2021). Hybrid warfare, information operations, and the cognitive battlespace in Southeast Asia. Journal of Strategic Studies, 44(7), 1021–1048.
  22. Wirtz, J. J. (2022). Hybrid warfare and the limits of conventional military adaptation: Evidence from developing states in Asia. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 45(8), 671–698.