I was sitting in the lounge of the Manila Elks Club Wednesday (Tuesday, the ill-fated September 11th in the states), watching Armageddon unfolding on CNN along with other stunned Yankee ex-pats. The images were hypnotic, shocking, and upsetting for all, leading more than a few folks to switch from coffee to stronger libations by early afternoon. I myself opted for Jack Daniels on the rocks, a drink which I nurtured as I tried to sort out my own feelings and assess what these unbelievable events really meant - for America, for the international community, for the Philippines, and for myself. While I failed to come up with definitive answers, following are a few free associations reflecting the themes that rumbled through my troubled mind that evening (and that have haunted my dreams in the intervening few days).

When it comes to international conflict, Uncle Sam has led a charmed existence throughout the 20th century. During World War I, we stayed out of the conflict for three years, intervening only when it was clear that the British and French had to have our help to defeat Kaiser Bill. Thousands of American boys lost their lives in the trenches, but there was never the remotest danger of conflict on American soil. World War II played out in similar fashion, with the Americans being late-comers and never experiencing major loss of life on the homefront other than Pearl Harbor itself. Despite the imposition of Daylight Savings Time and blackouts in Los Angeles, there wasn't much chance the Germans were going to cross the Atlantic or the Japanese the Pacific.

Vietnam? Although 58,691 names are inscribed on the Wall, and Americans for the first time viewed war up close on flickering cathode ray tubes, there was again no real threat of loss of life at home. The mighty United States was projecting its power in the fight to keep dominoes from falling, but at little risk to the safety and security of regular citizens in Nebraska or Florida. (In mentioning Vietnam, a troubling aside is that yesterday's Congressional rubber stamp giving Bush far-reaching authority to do what's necessary in the fight against terrorism sounded a lot like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, but we'll set that thought aside for the nonce).

Since the end of the Cold War, America has faced different and more ambiguous enemies. Over the last decade, the focus has shifted to rogue states and international terrorism, with American foreign policy pretty much muddling along. But we still managed to avoid loss of American lives at home. Even with the 1998 bombing of American embassies in Africa and other terrorist acts, they were still overseas, "over yonder" as they used to say. Troubling, and certainly increasing anxiety levels, but not fundamentally altering the way people went about their daily lives. Oklahoma City was an aberration, the product of home grown, right wing terrorism of a totally different stripe and not likely to reoccur in quite the same way. Thus, the threat of international terrorism, while increasingly serious and growing in its impact on the American people, was still abstract.

Until September 11.

As those of you who read these Pearls are probably aware, I am handicapped by baggage accrued during earlier years in academia, baggage of a primarily leftist bent. As a youth, I marched in anti-war demonstrations and, even though I later served in Southeast Asia (involuntarily thanks to the draft) I never agreed with what was going on. Later, at Cornell, I studied the great revolutions of the world, dissected Karl Marx, and otherwise prepped myself for a career in an ivory tower (a career which somehow never quite came to fruition). Although I was never a card-carrying pinko or token Marxist¹, and later significantly modified my philosophy of life (some would say "sold out"), I developed a rather critical view of the American state and the institutions of capitalism - something I shared in common with many others of my generation.

All of which is beside the point, except to note that those earlier experiences shaped the way I experienced and processed the horrific events on the Elks Club tube. On the one hand, my hackles were up and I was just as mad as the next red-blooded Yank. My God, that's the World Trade Center! And that's the Pentagon! Innocent people are being murdered in cold blood. Something's got to be done here, something drastic, and the sooner the better. Bomb the bastards!

But, on the other hand, I was also seeking balance, reasoned explanations. How had the world come to this horrible historic turning point? What could possibly explain what was happening? And where were we heading now? The abyss yawns...

And what about the Philippines? The country is bound to be directly affected by the new environment, whatever shape that may take. GMA has already pledged her support to Uncle Sam, and has opened up Clark and Subic as needed. The Muslim separatist groups (Abu Sayyaf, MILF, MNLF, see Kidnapping Philippines Style for some details) have received millions of dollars from bin Laden, money coursed through the World Muslim League, a Saudi-based missionary organization. Cells related to Al-Qaida (bin Laden's terrorist organization) are reportedly active in the Visayas. And remember that, a few days before Pope John Paul II's visit here in January 1995, a fellow named Abdulhakim Alihashim Murad was arrested for plotting to assassinate the pontiff; he was later convicted in the states, along with Ramzi Ahmad Yousef, for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Historical gloss: The Muslims were here well before the Catholics (i.e., the Spanish). The first Arab missionary, Sheikh Karimul Makdum, arrived in Mindanao in 1380. Even before that time, Jolo and Cotabato were important trading centers, and most of the merchants were Arabs. By 1450, there was a Muslim Sultanate centered in Jolo (then Buansa). Islamic schools were established, political institutions were modeled on Islamic principles, and preachers were sent out to proselytize in the surrounding areas. This Islamization of Mindanao and Sulu led to ideological bonding and sense of cultural identity that distinguished the Muslims from non-Muslims elsewhere in the archipelago.

Indeed, when the Spanish came in with their twin objectives of (a) increasing the domain of the Spanish crown, and (b) Christianizing the locals they immediately came in conflict with the Muslims. Subjugating the rest of the country was relatively easy, given that the indigenous peoples were mostly animists and nature worshippers who lived in fragmented tribal groups (see An Oversimplified History Lesson). But the Muslims were a different story. The Spanish dubbed them "Moros", after the Moors whom they had fought for centuries (c. 711-1492) in the Iberian Crusades. The Moros were a tough foe, and the Spanish were never able to control or rule them.

Moroland, as it was called, was included in the cession of territories to America under the Treaty of Paris (1898), even though most of the areas in question had never really been part of the Spanish colony. Uncle Sam gave high priority to assimilating the Moros, but not on religious grounds of the Spanish. Instead, the emphasis was on blessing the natives with the gift of democracy on the American model. Thus, the Americans implemented American institutions, American laws (land surveys, titles, etc.), and American schools. The Americans also encouraged Christian Filipinos from overpopulated northern areas to settle on open land in Mindanao.

All of which were, from the Moro perspective, threats to the existence of their culture and religion. Not surprisingly, they resisted from the very beginning. It took the Americans a decade (1903-1913) to pacify the Moros, and even thereafter there was an uneasy peace and considerable resistance through the period up to World War II.

The international resurgence of Islam after World War II coincided with the granting of independence to the Philippines. During the 1950s the Moros asserted themselves anew. New mosques and madaris (religious schools) were built with funds from Arab countries, hundreds of young Moros traveled to the Middle East to study on scholarships, and missionaries from Egypt and other Muslim countries proselytized throughout Mindanao.

But these assertions of cultural independence were accompanied by the ongoing exploitation and marginalization of Filipino Muslims. The result: major uprisings in the 1960s and armed resistance in the form of the MNLF and MILF. Initially, Marcos responded predictably with bombing, mass arrests, and forced disarmament. However, under significant international pressure, he agreed to the establishment of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), a cosmetic independence that satisfied none of the parties. The last decade, of course, has seen the rise of increasingly violent separatist (and terrorist) groups, in particular the Abu Sayyaf.

The Muslim populace still has little use for the Philippine government, which regularly manipulates population statistics to minimize the Muslim head count (only Christian birth and death records are recognized as official). Voter registration is minimal and the major social service needs of poor Muslims are virtually ignored. Big development projects often undermine the needs of the Muslim. One example: the National Power Corporation built numerous hydroelectric dams along the Agus River to power factories in Iligan and Cagayan de Oro. The strain has nearly destroyed Lake Lano, which for centuries has supported the Maranao ("people of the lake"), one of 13 distinct cultural-linguistic groups in Mindanao. The big steel mills and other industries in coastal cities employ virtually no Muslims, preferring instead to import Christian Filipinos from the Visayas.

The government's ongoing battle to eliminate the Abu Sayyaf has, among other things, created over 200,000 refugees in the provinces of Maguindanao, North Cotabato, Sultan Kadarat, and Lanao del Sur. Christian vigilante groups, known by cute names such as Tadtad (Choppers) and Ilagas (Rats), have again become active. Although their weapons can't match up with the firepower of the Abus or MILF, they spend their time terrorizing Muslim civilians suspected of sympathizing with the rebels. Which, not surprisingly, just adds more fuel to the fire.

The bottom line: Filipino Muslims have little in common with Filipino Christians and almost no allegiance to the Philippine government. The answer to the perennial question ("what have you done for me lately?") is pretty clear. The Abu Sayyaf have plenty of money and superior firepower, and the military's efforts to put them out of business have so far been an abysmal failure (which is not to rule out what might happen when Uncle Sam shifts into high gear in its upcoming campaign for retribution). Given that there are an estimated 30-50 bin Laden trained terrorists in the Philippines (some almost certainly lying in wait right here in Manila), I for one am concerned about my own and my family's safety.

And what can you possibly do when people are willing to die for their cause? Consider the earnest young Palestinian who has spent his life in a hovel in occupied territory who marches into a Palestinian terrorist hideout and eagerly asks to have explosives taped around his chest (packed with nails to ensure plenty of shrapnel to do maximum damage). Following instructions, he then gets on a bus or heads for the nearest crowded marketplace before pulling the cord. The hijackers who engineered the current devastation simply took such zealotry to a higher level.

But I would quibble with the term "suicide bombers." The psychological definition of suicide involves "suicidal ideation," usually deep depression, schizophrenic withdrawal, turning hostility inward on oneself, or obtaining release from unbearable emotional pain. I believe it was Camus who said: "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide."

But the new generation of terrorists are not depressed and they're not killing themselves for convoluted westernized reasons involving angst or alienation. They're doing it for the love of Allah. Suicide is forbidden by Islamic law. Thus, the Imams have taught them (brainwashed them?) to believe that they are martyring themselves for God and will go straight to Heaven. No doubts, no questions asked, no hesitation. The ultimate weapon?

As the evening wound down, now the middle of the night on the East Coast, I finished up my third shot of Tennessee whiskey, tired and still stunned by the events of this historic day. I reflected on Samuel Huntington, a famous political scientist whose work on political development had influenced my own early intellectual development. I haven't kept up on the political science literature over the years, but not long ago I had read Huntington's best-selling (and controversial) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (Simon & Schuster, 1996).

Huntington argues convincingly that contemporary international relations no longer revolve around conflicts among nation-states. Instead, the focus will now be on "the fault lines between civilizations." Cultural communities are replacing the old certainties of the Cold War. Hungington concludes that there are three main players: Western, Islamic, and Sinic (Chinese): "The balance of power among civilizations is shifting. The West is declining in relative influence... Islam is exploding demographically, with destabilizing consequences for Muslim countries and their neighbors, and non-Western civilization generally are reaffirming the value of their own cultures…on a worldwide basis, civilization seems in many respects to be yielding to barbarism, generating the image of an unprecedented phenomenon, a global Dark Ages, possibly descending on humanity…" Frightening words indeed.

Clearly, the nature of international conflict has shifted considerably since the end of the Cold War. In a way, American foreign policy has floundered. Things were a lot simpler when George Kennan outlined his theory of containment and when the American and the Soviets held each other at bay with long-range bombers and ICBMs with nuclear warheads. It was a world of black and white and good guys versus bad guys. Americans weren't really prepared for the murky gray nuances of the 1990s, which is probably why all the talk about the dangers of terrorism and rogue states the last few years has been relatively unfocused.

Well, there's a focus now. With one fell swoop - specifically the moment those planes slammed into the twin towers so closely identified with the Manhattan skyline and into the Pentagon, citadel and symbol of American military might - America again has a clear cut enemy, an enemy that may, if not contained, overshadow the evil embodied in earlier-generation bad guys (the Kaiser, der Führer, the Red Menace). Even with my old leftist streak, it's hard to deny that this situation has to be dealt with, forcibly and the sooner the better. I just hope that America's decision-makers do what has to be done without entirely forgetting about little things like human rights and the presumption of innocence.

1. A term used in 1970s-1980s era departments of sociology and political science to refer to the obligatory Marxist hire, often earnest young intellectuals with doctorates from Cornell or Columbia, undergraduate degrees from places like Smith or Swarthmore, and parents who were Wall Street bankers.