In mid-2008, with turbulence in Thailand's Deep South halfway through its 5th year, government, military and police claimed that tangible progress had been made in destabilising insurgent networks and reducing in six month period since late 2007. Though statistics do indicate an overall decline in violent incidents and casualties over this period, authorities still face challenge of convincing both borderland and national population, as well as news media (both domestic and foreign) that they are making progress in ways that are both substantial and legitimate. It is a state that can appropriately be described as intractable. Essentially there are two key reasons for this condition of intractability bedevilling Thailand's crisis. First, security forces of Thai state are unable to reach a decisive breakthrough in counter-insurgency and development efforts in face of a determined and flexible guerrilla war being waged against them. Admittedly, cell-based clandestine insurgent networks have been at least a decade in making, so it is hardly to be expected that this guerrilla-style offensive can be quelled rapidly, and over past few years military and government officials have repeatedly emphasized that it will take time to end violence. Nonetheless, even with current policy mix of law enforcement and peaceoriented development, it is unlikely that a reduction in current violence will be any more than gradual. Overshadowing this ongoing challenge is fact that daily killings afflicting borderland are also committed by crime networks and rival local politicians who intersect with ideologically-motivated groups in varied and confusing ways. (1) Unofficial estimates of proportion of total killings resulting from private and political conflicts range from between 15 to 50 per cent. (2) Nevertheless, impelling force driving violence and continuing insecurity in borderland is clearly a form of Malay-Muslim separatism embraced by a looselystructured movement founded on cell-based military and political wings, one that has been able to attract support from a proportion of local Malay-Muslim population, and otherwise demand compliance and/or silence of many others. Second, condition of intractability is compounded by continuing contestation over key issues surrounding the problem of south and solutions to it. Over past year civil society sector, numerous single-issue advocates and sections of borderland Muslim elite have continued to condemn security forces as prime aggressor, targeting in particular continuing application of emergency law of 2005 which permits security forces to detain and question suspects. While fervent in their criticism, these groups have not proposed realistic alternative measures for reducing ongoing violence. During 2004 a number of perceptive Thai commentators, including pseudonymous columnist Barun and Sathian Chantimathon, stressed that conflict in south would be primarily a conflict around construction of knowledge. (3) Within a few weeks of explosion of violence that followed startling raid on a military camp in Narathiwat Province on 4 January 2004, there emerged a cluster of jostling arguments about origins, character and solutions to southern fire. These stymied any clear consensus about its driving dynamics and primary solutions. They were generated by various key actors and interest groups, including members of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's government, opposition Democrat Party, media, academics, public intellectuals, justice advocates and serving and retired military figures. In a previous research paper, I suggested that these overlapping, but often competing paradigms could be grouped under a number of headings, including: The Draconian and Short-sighted Thaksin State; The Marginalized and Persecuted Southern Muslim; Banditry, Underdevelopment and Manipulation; Security Threat and Need for a Firm Military Response; and The Lawless and Neglected Borderland. …