Establishing Islamic law seems to be, at least symbolically, a centerpiece of the revolution, and Indonesia wrestled with that in the 1950s, right?

The debate over the role of Islamic law in Indonesia politics actually goes back to the very founding of the republic of Indonesia and the circumstance of the independence war [from the Dutch] between 1945 and 1949, which was a very bitter and costly war. It left a great legacy and sense of nationalist pride. It was an independence struggle that was divided from the start over the question of what the foundation of the nation should be. Should it be a more or less secular, nationalist republic or one in which Islam was given a central place? Ultimately it was the former, a more or less secular form of government agreed upon largely because the many Muslims were themselves deeply committed to the idea of nationhood and independence and didn't want to compromise that.

Obviously the violence in the Bali attack was off the scale. Was everything about it different?

Yes -- there had been no attacks on Westerners before it. And that's why I think Indonesians are very shocked by this.

Who do you think was behind the bombing?

It's either one of three groups. The first group would be Jamaah Islamiyyah. The second group, and this would be the one I give the edge, would be a like-minded group that in effect operates according to the same principle and decided it would take the initiative so as to not compromise Abu Bakar Baasyir.

To give him deniability?

Right, deniability. And then the third possibility, and this cannot be ruled out, is that this was one of those free-floating terror groups with links to al-Qaida that's been operating across Southeast Asia. It's not unthinkable to suggest it's agents from outside Indonesia entirely.

Do you think anyone will claim responsibility?

No.

Why not?

My sense is that they may have gotten more than they intended. That their goal was not quite that degree of carnage. I could be wrong. And if it's the third group, if it is a free-floating group much more directly tied to al-Qaida, then carnage was their interest and they got it.

But if it was a domestic group?

This is a prediction, but I think they're going to see over the next few days that if they hoped to influence domestic opinion in Indonesia into a firmer anti-American stance, it was a significant mistake.

What will be the effect for Abu Bakar Baasyir?

I think he might be arrested. But he also might be subjected to a kind of political quarantine. For the Indonesian government to move effectively will depend on great international cooperation and the effect of an Iraqi invasion on the whole Muslim world. If the United States invades Iraq there will be great pressure in the Muslim world for demonstrations of solidarity. Not for physical attacks on Americans. But in effect through acts of noncooperation in the campaign on terror.

So there will be pressure on the Indonesia government to let Abu Bakar Baasyir go?

Yes.

You mentioned before Muslim fence-sitters in Indonesia. How, in theory, if you're a conservative fence-sitter, how would the Bali attack spur you to a more conservative camp?

It won't. It will spur you because, if I'm right and the wave of the reaction we're seeing right now is already moving very decisively as a repugnant act of violence and an attack on Indonesia, then the fence-sitters will bolt and denounce this and in effect, at the very least, be a little less virulent in their opposition to a crackdown on terrorism.

What will happen to that internal Islamic debate you were talking about?

Unfortunately, it's not going to be decisively resolved one way or another because politics in Indonesia is so complex and because everything is going to be complicated if and when the United States invades Iraq. If it were just al-Qaida and the U.S. war against terrorism, the bombing in Bali would have benefited the anti-al-Qaida and anti-radical camp in the Muslim community enormously, as it would have benefited those who want closer relations with the United States. But the United States administration's continuing commitment to link the al-Qaida war with the invasion of Iraq is not selling anywhere in the Muslim world, including Indonesia. And I don't say that with any opinion about invasion. I think if we didn't have Iraq to consider, this would be a turning point in the Indonesian Muslim community.

Was the terrorist attack an attempt to torpedo Indonesia's economy and create an even larger power vacuum?

That's the biggest unknown. I think politically, from the hard-liners' perspectives, yes, this bombing was a failure in both the short and medium term. However, the long-term situation in Indonesia is the economy still has not recovered from the 1997-98 Asian economic crisis. And this attack is gong to deal an enormous blow. It's going to swell the ranks of the unemployed and the embittered.

How would radicals try to capitalize on that?

They recognize the mosque is one of the few havens of sociability, and places where people can go, especially young men, when you're poor in the city. That's part of their hope. But the other part of the hope is they feel ideologically they can use the economic decline as proof that the world order is dominated by the U.S., and globalization is a fraud and really just Americanization and American dominance.

Could the bombing cause economic collapse and eventually usher radicals into power?

I think that's the dream of the radical right. But even if the economy collapses, I don't think Indonesia is gong to become a radical Islamic state. I think the chances of that are almost nil. However, it could become an almost ungovernable state, and that is a great danger.

Why are the chances nil?

Because if a radical Islamic government were shoved down the population's throat, it would be resisted with such enormous fury the government would collapse overnight. The elections of 1999 showed there was very little support for radical Islamists and that the majority of Muslims wanted a nationalist government.

What about the idea that the Bali bombing could be the beginning of the end of a radical movement in Indonesia simply because they have overplayed their hand, the government will clamp down, the U.S. will get involved with intelligence, and moderates in Indonesia will have nothing to do with them?

I don't think it takes much to maintain radical movement of this sort. It takes a little bit of finance and a few people who are willing to give their lives.

But before last weekend, my sense was there was a certain willingness in Indonesia to look the other way at terrorist groups. If that was erased overnight, it would be much harder for these radical groups to continue with some of their rhetoric, wouldn't it?

It would, but we're dealing with a USSR-scale country [in size] but with an even weaker state, so it's very easy for a few troublemakers to move around. But in terms of moral authority for these groups to sell their arguments to a small fringe of the Muslim community, [the bombing] has been a serious setback.

Recent Stories