How Will It Play Out? Two Scenarios for the Next 12 Months.

Discussion in 'World Events' started by thecurly1, Oct 20, 2001.

  1. thecurly1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,024
    From Slate.com:

    What will the world look like in October 2002? Slate asked experts on terrorism, strategy, the military, the Middle East, and the economy to describe how they think events will play out in the coming year. On a few major issues there was significant consensus: Osama Bin Laden will be killed or captured; there will be more attempts—not necessarily successful—at terror attacks on U.S. soil; Afghanistan will be America's sole major military campaign; there will be no resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; oil supplies will remain stable. The predictions, though, come with a caveat best expressed by Christopher Bassford, a professor of strategy at the National War College: "I believe the foreseeable future just ended." We have compiled the leading views into two main scenarios: a relatively benign prognosis and a "don't-read-this-right-before-bedtime" one.

    The Good News: Back to Sept. 10 (More or Less)
    Osama Bin Laden is dead—dispatched by either the Afghan opposition, the Taliban, the Pakistanis, an emissary from his own family, or U.S. special forces. He does not become an inspirational martyr. "At the moment he's a heroic figure, he stood up to the United States," says Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "If he gets defeated, he's a lot less heroic." Al-Qaida is largely wiped out, its leaders and operatives killed or jailed around the world. Those who are left don't have the means or leadership to carry out assaults on the scale of the World Trade Center or Pentagon and consider suicide bombing at malls or restaurants no longer spectacular enough, says Bassford. And because everyone is so vigilant, most attempted attacks will be thwarted anyway.

    If any do succeed, they will not produce nearly the death toll of the Sept. 11 catastrophes, especially if they take the form of biological warfare, because as the anthrax letters showed, such attacks don't easily generate mass casualties. As a result, Americans eventually recover their psychological equilibrium. By 2002, the United States will have adopted the model the British went to at the height of the IRA bombings. We will be on our way to having national identity cards, for example. But Americans will accept this—and security screening measures at public places—as a necessary, even reassuring means of increasing safety.

    The demise of Bin Laden and al-Qaida will cool the furies of militant Islam. Yasser Arafat realized he was on the wrong side when he supported Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, and the crushing of al-Qaida will have a similar effect. "If it turns out terror is a disastrous way to go, we may get a different environment in that world," says Eliot Cohen of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He says the Arabs' failed wars against Israel in 1948 and 1967 provoked a period of soul-searching among them.

    The United States does not wage another large-scale military campaign such as the one in Afghanistan. The next U.S. military moves are sending small units of special forces on quick in-and-out strikes in various other countries to kill members of terrorist cells. But the United States holds on to many coalition partners because its effort to dismantle terrorism proceeds primarily through law enforcement, financial, and diplomatic means. To counter anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, the United States invests in economic development programs in countries with moderate regimes and steps up pro-Western broadcasts throughout the region.

    What will the Afghan government look like in 2002? It will be shaky—maybe a U.N. protectorate, maybe a U.S.-led mission to establish a working indigenous government. But the Taliban will be destroyed along with their terrorist training camps.

    As a result of the anti-terror coalition, the United States' relationship with Europe will be closer and more trusting than it was at the beginning of this Bush administration. The United States will have closer ties, too, to both China and Russia. The optimists also hold that except for Afghanistan, the regimes that were in place in October 2001 are still running things in 2002. While that may not sound like wholly good news, it also means that no governments, including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, have been taken over by militant Islamists. Oil prices remain steady, or even fall, since Gulf exporters are as dependent on oil money as the West is on oil. One thing that also remains the same is the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. No, not good news, but not an escalation into something worse.

    There are two scenarios the optimists present on Iraq. In one, Saddam Hussein remains quietly in place only because he understands that for him to take any new military action or give traceable aid to the terrorists means that this time the United States will eliminate him. In the other, he takes new military action, or the United States traces his ties to the terrorists and eliminates him. His end comes either through direct U.S. military action or through U.S. cooperation with the Iraqi opposition. "Iraq could be dispatched easily, relatively speaking," says Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum. Unlike militant Islam, which is an ideology transcending national borders, Saddam's Iraq is a totalitarian state dependent on a single person. Even if Saddam is replaced by a thug, he will be a "chastened thug" says Johns Hopkins' Cohen—one who understands the consequences of provoking the United States.

    In the absence of increased global unrest or major terrorist attacks here, the limping U.S. economy limps back. Interest rates are at historic lows, the banking system is healthy, and commodities are cheap. The economy has already absorbed the losses of the dot-coms. Unemployment remains stable due to growth in defense and high-tech and because thousands of people have been called out of the reserves into active duty, leaving their civilian jobs to be filled. Some sectors will even boom. You could do well investing in oil exploration stocks and companies that provide protection and recovery from cyberattacks.

    To show just how back to normal life is, bipartisanship is dead. A year from now, says Clawson, Democrats and Republicans will be fighting over what to do about Social Security.

    And the United States will be feared. Says Cohen, "That's a healthy thing."

    The Bad News: Apocalypse How
    The United States can't find Bin Laden. Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, recently retired head of the U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, suggests Bin Laden might even try to capitalize on this by faking his own death. "I really believe that at some point in time, a 6-foot-5 charred body's going to be delivered somewhere," he says. "I would make sure we had DNA from the Bin Laden family." While many al-Qaida operatives are killed or jailed around the world, the organization lives on. There are too many people deeply embedded in too many countries, including the United States, for law enforcement to permanently cripple it.

    Are there more attacks on the United States? Try these possibilities: a series of suicide bombings at fast food restaurants and malls. While there have been congressional hearings about the safety of the water supply, observes John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, "Have they had any hearings about food court security?" The result is that people are afraid to go to any public places. Some experts also see the possibility of assassinations of political figures, cyberterrorism that cripples electronic communications on a new scale, or truck bombings of big, symbolic places like FBI headquarters or the Supreme Court. Inspired by the shutdown of the U.S. transportation grid on Sept. 11, terrorists turn to infrastructure assaults on, say, ports or refineries, designed more to cripple the economy than to kill. Or the next move is attacks with chemical or biological weapons. "That's inevitable," says Gen. Zinni. "It's becoming less difficult to do. … It isn't going to be 500,000 casualties in New York City, but it could be 500 casualties somewhere." Or how about a nuclear device hidden in a suitcase and exploded in a skyscraper? "The United States has always said retaliation would be overwhelming if we were attacked with weapons of mass destruction," says Daniel Benjamin, a Clinton administration National Security Council staffer. "That's a good policy, but it's hard to do if you don't know who's attacking."

    While the United States is rocked by assaults, Muslim rage against us increases in intensity and arcs to an additional geographic flashpoint: Southeast Asia—Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines.

    The initial U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan was successful in that the Taliban was overthrown, but that country falls into chaos, and the United States is torn between being drawn into a nation-building quagmire or again abandoning Afghanistan and again reaping the consequences. And after the Afghanistan deployment, the United States is reluctant to engage in similarly scaled military campaigns against terrorist organizations or terrorism-sponsoring states. That reluctance—and the understanding on the part of militant Islam of how reluctant the United States is—empowers them. "We're fighting a limited war; they're fighting total war," says the National War College's Ilana Kass. "If your commitment is less, they don't need to win, they just need to outlast you."

    Then there are the toppling regimes. The current Saudi government could fall, either taken down by street revolution in the manner of Iran's peacock throne or from an internal coup, with an anti-Western faction of the royal family taking over. Many pessimists agree that whoever runs Saudi Arabia will not turn off the oil spigot because that is the entire underpinning of its economy. But an organization like al-Qaida, bent on destroying the monarchy, would enjoy seeing the price shocks that result from destroying the oil fields.

    What is more worrisome is the conflict between Pakistan and India. In aiding the United States, Pakistan's leader Pervez Musharraf "signed his own death warrant," says former Middle East intelligence operative William Cowan. Fundamentalists will assassinate him and take over the country. Then it's time for a game of all-nuke chicken. In one version, India decides not to wait to see what the Pakistani fundamentalists do but instead moves in with its superior conventional forces to take over the country. But before India can finish the job, Pakistan retaliates with nuclear weapons. Or, alternatively, a fundamentalist Pakistan, knowing that India will want to attack, launches nukes pre-emptively. With that going on, Saddam takes the opportunity to attack Israel with biological weapons. "Israel retaliates, and there's holy war all over the place," says Cohen.

    Let's just say all this doesn't cause the Dow to go up. As for consumer confidence, don't ask. Anyone remember stagflation? That happens when the economy is not growing, but the government is printing so much money to pay for deficits that it causes inflation. "Don't let anyone tell you wars are good for economies," says National War College economist I.J. Singh. "Wars are very bad, wars lead to uncertainty, and people don't want to invest." (World War II was an exception because it ended a pre-existing depression.) U.S. demand for goods has been the tractor pulling many of the young Asian economies, so with the United States in recession, they will be hit, too. Japan's economy will remain in the doldrums, and Europe will be hurt. That means a worldwide recession—and they tend to be long.

    Finally, there is the ultimate doomsday scenario: We all die. But to Kass that is not the worst outcome. "The worst one is we just give up." She fears that some spectacular attacks could cause the United States to say: We'll do whatever it takes to make it stop. We leave the world stage and become weak and fearful. "We cease being who we are," she says.

    Pleasant dreams!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    I take the pessimistic view. All hell will break loose but it may take 10 years to happen. The same factors but different outcomes.

    USA: Hawks and Doves - can not settle on a long term winning strategy. Problems from our own hate groups. More terror than real damage.

    Iran: Queitly working to dominate the Muslim world, hates Iraq.
    Indonesia: Not much, but US may loose some business there. Same in Phillipines.
    Iraq: Will feed Bio-agents, but not a major threat.
    Saudi, Qatar and all the major Gulf oil states: Billions of dollars will flow to fundamentalists to keep peace which will find its way to major terrorists. Osama has a big clan...
    Egypt: Still a poor country. Breeds a lot of terrorists.
    Afghanistan: Terrorists will be driven out to Pakistan.
    Pakistan: Soon, it will be another Iran...
    India: Will be too busy trying to stave of Pakistanis.

    USA: Economy will be like an yo-yo for the next 10 years. No more major deaths but, small activities around the world will cause business to suffer. A lot of manhours will be lost. If we lose the oil from gulf sates due to a terrorist attack, it will set us back for 6 months - no automobile, electricity, transportation...
    New York: The city as you know it, may not exist in 12 years, because every terrorist will be targeting that city.

    Terrorists major weapon is not bio-agents, nuclear bombs, but "terror". As long as we fall prey to that, they win. Can we develop a process to counteract - since it is more psychological with some real live activities - it will be very difficult.

    Light at the end of the tunnel: May be after 10 years, peace will breakout, after the key leaders are terminated and a large scale cleanup effort is undertaken. Terrorists are no different than the gangs of USA except they have more money. If even Salt Lake City could not get rid of local gangs (forget about L.A.), - right here in USA, what makes you think we can take on bigger foes?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Captain Canada Stranger in Town Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    484
    Can't say I entirely agree with all these scenarios, but then it is virtually impossible to predict the future - especially when tiny incidents relying on luck can have huge consequences (like finding Bin Laden).

    But there are themes and patterns. Personally, I think Iran is going to be a major winner here unless it all degenerates into a wider war. It is a natural ally for the US to court. No, I'm serious. It will take incredible care and time - and the two can never be that close, but look at regional interests over the past decade and you'll find two very similar outlooks. As for stability, Iran is the most satble country in the region by some distance, and while other states are moving towards extreme Islam, Iran has had its revolution and is moving the other way.

    Not enough attention is being paid to Saudi and the Gulf. The monarchies are under more pressure than most people (including the US) can see. These countries are not that far from revolution. The rulers can no longer afford to maintain their elaborate welfare systems and jobs for all are a thing of the past. The population is growing faster here than anywhere else in the world, and water is going to be a problem. 50% of the population is under 20, and unemployment and poverty are growing. The tacit acceptance of the rule of the monarchies in exchange for an easy life is breaking down. Look at monarchies in the middle east throough history - beyond Jordan they have all fallen to revilution when economic circumstances are poor. With oil likely to trough again and popular anger with the US, this could be a spark for an Iran style movement in Saudi. Maybe not yet, but it is an increasingly possible outcome as this war continues.

    What would that mean for the US? A headache to put it mildly.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Irrespective of what happens in the middle east, it is not really difficult to to manage the scenario. The golden rule is always - he who has the gold makes the rules.

    All is needed is for our US analysts work with US business interest and the executive branch to avert any disaster. That has not happened in the past. The WTC is a wake up call and hopefully, our two branches of the government can work with our free enterprise to create a better environment.

    Will it happen? Not likely for atleast two more Presidents. It is hard to make the elephant dance on a dime. The weakest link is, we do not have people who understand middle east culture and religion at the key positions. We view the world as American Free Enterprise System with Christian values.

    As they say, It is a whole different ball game. I say, it is more like golf....
     
  8. Brad Rules Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    153
    Israel attacks the Palestinians and the region explodes into war. America is dragged into the conflict. China, believing that America is distracted attacks Taiwan. Hardliners in Russia overthrow the government and communism is reinstalled. Russia declares war on the United States because of the troops in her former provinces. America and Britain declare war on China. After America gains the upper hand, the Chineese and Russian governments let their nuclear arsenal fly.... America responds in kind. Out of the 5+ billion humans that entered the conflict, a billion or so survive.
     
  9. thecurly1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,024
    Someone has been watching "The Day After", way too many times.
     
  10. DaarkSyde Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    My scenario: The world realizes that the NWO is behind it all they start their mass protests, martial law is invoked worldwide rights and freedoms abolished. If you raise a protest you are thrown into concentration camps,,,Aushwitz(sp). The population of the world right now continues to grow, too many people not enough resources. Mass extermination begins in the camps. This plan was widely distributed on the net since 1996. Do your research on the NWO, Masons,Bilderbergs,Trilateral commission,you will see our future.
     
  11. thecurly1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,024
    Predictions are fleeding.

    The conspiracy theorists have waved that stupid flag for decades and nothing has happened. Even with all of your "reliable sources" and other fake stuff.

    Wait ten years, these conspiracy theories will not have come to fruition, then you guys will change theories again, they'll be disproven, and the cycle will continue. Its already happening.
     
  12. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Here is a prediction:

    Due to high insurance cost, urban sprawl will be severely limited and busineses will be moving to Louisiana like states (out to now where...)
     

Share This Page