Crunchy Con

Gaming Iraq's future

Monday March 19, 2007

Rolling Stone magazine put together an all-star intelligence panel (Zbigniew Brzezenzki, Richard Clarke, Michael Scheuer, Nir Rosen and others) to figure out what would be the Best Case Scenario in Iraq, the Worst Case Scenario, and What's Likely to Happen. Read the results here. Here's Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's bin Laden desk, on the best case:

No matter what happens now, the Islamists will have beaten both of the superpowers -- first the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and now the United States in the heart of Islam. The impact of that in Islamic civilization is going to be enormous. We have made bin Laden a prophet: His organizing concept for Al Qaeda was "The Russians are a lot tougher than the Americans. If we can beat the Russians, then we can eventually beat the Americans." Even more important, Al Qaeda will have contiguous territory on the Arab peninsula to attack from.


Here's Gen. Tony McPeak (ret.), former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the Most Likely scenario:

We're going to see a full-scale intercommunal war that may not burn out until one side is all dead, all gone. The Kurds would like to sit on the sidelines, but I don't see how they stay out, especially up in the Kirkuk area, where they sit on a lot of oil. This is going to be ethnic cleansing like we had in Kosovo or Bosnia -- but written big, in capital letters. And we can't stop it.


Here's Nir Rosen on the worst-case scenario:

Iraq will be the battleground where the Sunni-Shia conflict will be fought, but it won't be limited to Iraq. It will spread. Pandora's box is open. We didn't just open it, we opened it and threw fuel into it and threw matches into it. You'll soon see Sunni militias destabilizing countries like Jordan and Syria -- where the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood is very strong. It took about ten years for the Palestinians to become politicized and militarized when they were first expelled from Palestine. You're likely to see something like that occurring in the huge Iraqi refugee populations in Syria and Jordan. King Abdullah of Jordan is resented for being an American stooge and an accomplice with Israel. I'm convinced that the monarchy in Jordan will fall as a result of this, and Israel will be confronted with a frontline state on its longest border with an Arab country.

You're going to see borders changing, governments falling. Lebanon is already on the precipice. Throughout the region, government officials are terrified. Nobody knows how to stop it. This is World War III. How far will it spread? Anywhere there are Islamic movements, like in Somalia, in Sudan, in Yemen. Pakistan has always had Sunni-Shia fighting. The flow of Iraqi refugees will at some point affect Europe.


How bad do you think it will be? Pessimist that I am, I think it's going to be massive regional warfare, which will inflame the Islamic populations of Europe, causing violence and civil unrest in European capitals. How it ends, I have no idea.

But I will say this: I think come late 2008, we're all going to be pining for a time when we had the luxury to take into consideration a presidential candidate's stand on abortion.
Advertisement
Comments
watsy
March 20, 2007 7:16 PM
HASH(0xadd48fc)

I don't understand the first post written by St. Irenaeus.
Of course, maybe if our country were pro-life we wouldn't be so pro-war. Who questioned this war the most 4 years ago? It seems to me that it was the prolife religious conservatives standing behind GWB and encouraging him to start firing the missiles and arming the troops. Blaming liberals and abortion on the affection that religious conservatives have for war & the killing of the enemy doesn't make much sense. Rod, Biden??? I would only vote for Biden if he promised to keep his mouth shut for 4 years. Vote for Biden: Windbag for President.

Patrick Watson
March 20, 2007 7:24 PM
www.drivingoutthesnakes.com

The only thing more important than defending America is to make sure that America is worth defending.

Rod Dreher
March 20, 2007 8:58 PM
HASH(0xadd5a2c)

I know, Simon, it would be hard to improve on GWB if you were looking for a foreign policy incompetent. The point of my bringing up that example, however, is to show that it is conceivable that foreign policy/national security could be of such overriding concern that it would push even conscientious pro-lifers away from the only pro-life candidate in a presidential race. That said, I agree with you that the candidates we are likely to get won't pose such a stark choice. But that doesn't negate the value of the thought experiment. The new Touchstone magazine came in yesterday, and David Mills has in it a reflection about orthodox Christians making compromises when it comes to voting. If I recall the piece correctly, he says that Christians may find themselves in a situation in which they end up voting for a deeply imperfect candidate as a matter of prudential choice, but they should never accept that the flawed candidate is an ideal.

Joel
March 20, 2007 11:26 PM
HASH(0xadd6ee4)

It was just a little over two years ago that most Americans did in fact vote for a grossly incompetent military adventurer with generally anti-abortion views. Permit me to point out that John Kerry, while generally pro-abortion (and generally an arrogant prick), is widely known to be a thoroughly competent administrator and legislator. Not as good at giving speeches as President Bush, but much, much better at making rational decisions. This is why I voted for Kerry, and why I *still* say that he would be a better President. After all, after six years of President Bush abortion is still legal in all 50 states, through the full nine months of pregnancy, for any reason or for no reason, and minors are not required to get parental consent. But Bush *says* he opposes it, and this matters because - ?

M.D.M.
March 21, 2007 2:29 AM
HASH(0xadd8460)

"Simply noting that Iran is a mess because of what Brezinzki's boss did or didn't do back then." NO, BUGG, Iran is a mess today because of what the shah did or didn't do (and what the revolutionaries have done). Iranian-American relations ruptured in 1979 because of our continuing support of the shah (Carter admitted the shah to the U.S. against the recommendations of the State Dept. and Iranian experts). American policymakers (except for a few exceptions) were too ignorant (profoundly ignorant)of the realities of Iranian society and the shah's opposition to construct an intelligent policy.

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.