Charting the Future of the Indonesian Military’s Involvement in Counterterrorism

The Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) are increasingly integrated into domestic counterterrorism, a shift that Human Rights Watch warns could undermine civilian law enforcement and increase the risk of human rights violations. While TNI provides critical combat capabilities, analysts from the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute suggest this expansion complicates the legal boundary between police and military roles.

Why is the TNI expanding its counterterrorism role?

The TNI fills gaps in high-intensity combat zones where the Indonesian National Police (Polri) lack the heavy weaponry or manpower to operate. In regions like Poso and Papua, the military’s ability to conduct jungle warfare and large-scale sweeps makes them a primary asset for the government.

According to reports from the Indonesian Ministry of Defense, the military’s involvement is often framed as “supporting” police operations. However, the line between support and leadership often blurs during active operations. This shift reflects a broader trend of prioritizing immediate security outcomes over the strict separation of military and police duties established after the 1998 Reformasi.

What are the risks of military involvement in domestic security?

Military expansion into counterterrorism risks bypassing the judicial process. Human Rights Watch has documented instances where military-led operations resulted in extrajudicial killings, noting that TNI personnel are often subject to military courts rather than civilian ones. This creates a “legal vacuum” where accountability for abuses is harder to enforce.

Legal experts argue that the TNI is trained for war—to neutralize an enemy—whereas Polri’s Densus 88 is trained for law enforcement—to arrest and prosecute. When the military takes the lead, the objective often shifts from intelligence-led arrests to combat-led elimination. This distinction matters because military actions can alienate local populations, potentially fueling the very extremism the state seeks to erase.

TNI vs. Polri: Comparing Approaches

How does this affect long-term stability?

Heavy military presence in civilian areas can create a “security dilemma.” According to researchers at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, when the state relies on the TNI for domestic order, it signals a lack of trust in civilian institutions. This can erode the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of the public.

Past operations in Poso showed that while military sweeps could clear a region of militants, they didn’t always stop the ideology. Without the community-based policing that Polri is designed for, the military’s “hard” approach can leave a power vacuum that extremist recruiters fill by citing state brutality. This creates a cycle where more military force is required to manage the resulting resentment.

What happens if military roles expand further?

Further expansion likely means the institutionalization of “joint operations” where the TNI holds a permanent seat in domestic security planning. This could lead to the military gaining more influence over internal intelligence gathering, a power they held during the New Order era.

If the TNI continues to lead counterterrorism efforts, Indonesia may see a decline in the professionalism of its civilian police force. If the “hard” work is outsourced to the army, Polri may lose the capability to handle high-risk threats independently. This dependency makes the state more reliant on a force that isn’t designed for civilian oversight.

For more on regional security trends, see our analysis on Council on Foreign Relations reports regarding Southeast Asian stability.

Frequently Asked Questions