The terms "IED" and "land mine" are used interchangeably in local media reports. My understanding is that the device was of the type commonly used by the communist NPA, detonated by a direct observer.

The "Bangsamoro National Liberation Army" is a new arrival, possibly yet another MNLF splinter faction, possibly a rather grandiose name for the followers of a single autonomous leader or group of such leaders. There's no shortage of armed groups in the area and affiliation with any one umbrella group is often nominal and transient. We'll see.

Given the recent threat by the CPP/NPA to target US personnel and given the close similarity to devices and tactics the NPA has been using for years, I have to wonder if there could be some collaboration involved. By no means certain, but a possibility.

There has been a good deal of talk in Manila lately about US forces engaging in combat, which would violate the existing Visiting Forces Agreement. It's driven largely by the left, which has limited influence but is capable of making a good deal of noise, but a number of mainstream politicians have picked up on it, largely to be seen wielding the nationalist card in the upcoming elections, and simply because the issue draws media coverage. The GMA administration is talking about renegotiating the agreement, which would probably result in few if any changes, but there will be pressure to terminate it.

This incident is being used to support claims that US forces are operating in combat zones. It wouldn't be such a big deal, but very recently a female Philippine Navy officer, who had previously (and I suspect accurately) accused senior officers of appropriating funds for joint exercises, came out with a whole barrage of charges against US forces in the area. Among others, she claimed that US forces were participating in combat operations, were having prostitutes shipped into camps to service them, were engaging in racist behaviour toward Filipino officers, etc etc. Before that we had the infuriatingly avoidable circus of the Daniel Smith rape case. Of course all the allegations have two (or more) sides, but the media and politicians eat it up and the politicians and a segment of the populace does take note. The government of course denies all but at this point the government has so little trust that their denial is reflexively taken as confirmation.

There is of course a great deal of talk about ulterior or self-serving motives on the part of the US. In some ways I think the best US policy would be to announce that unless the post-election government clearly indicates a desire to continue the current operation, the US will unilaterally terminate it. That would effectively cancel out the allegations that the US is angling for a permanent presence and toss the ball back to the GRP, and when push came to shove I think most officials - even many of those who like to make an issue of the deployment - would prefer to see the US presence continue.