Hypothetical War of the Worlds

I had a vague idea about writing a condensed summary of an article I read predicting doom for the Middle East. I won't. Maybe. Mr. Harvard's basic thesis is that "ethnic disintegration, economic volatility, and empires in decline" are the fundamental predictors of global violence. Unfortunately, Iraq exhibits all three, none of which are likely to change anytime soon. Saith Harvard:

What makes the escalating civil war in Iraq so disturbing is that it has the potential to spill over into neighboring countries. ... Neighbors are always likely to take an unhealthy interest in any country with fissiparous tendencies.


The obvious conclusion is that a new "war of the world" may already be brewing in a region that, incredible though it may seem, has yet to sate its appetite for violence. And the ramifications of such a Middle Eastern conflagration would be truly global. Economically, the world would have to contend with oil at above $100 a barrel.... Is it credible that the United States will remain unscathed if the Middle East erupts?


Although such an outcome may seem to be a low-probability, nightmare scenario, it is already more likely than the scenario of enduring peace in the region.

Contrast that with the insincere lese majeste of Mr. General, in whose heart hope springs eternal. Saith General, following pages of well-founded pessimism:

No doubt a withdrawal will leave a terrible aftermath in Iraq, but we cannot avoid that....They [Whitehouse] do not recognize that withdrawal of US forces from Iraq is the sine qua non for achieving their [Western Europe] cooperation. It will be forthcoming once that withdrawal begins and looks irreversible. They will then realize that they can no longer sit on the sidelines. The aftermath will be worse for them than for the United States, and they know that without US participation and leadership, they alone cannot restore regional stability.

OK, I think I get it. We can't "win" until we pull out and then go back in again with Western Europe. Western Europe, who has previously been violently opposed to have anything to do with Iraq, will be willing to commit significant blood and treasure this time around because "it will be worse for them." Moreover, while the US alone can do nothing to solve the internal civil war and external meddling, the US and Western Europe together should be able to resolve these intractable issues just fine?

Here is where my vague summary and turgid prose ends. However, my one takeaway from these articles is a random mish-mash of thoughts from Independence Day and economics. First, the latter. A basic premise of international trade, is that both countries gain because of a bunch of reasons I know longer care about, but could reasonably surmise if I actually thought about it. However, within each country there are winners and losers. Simple really.

My Independence Day moment came when I realized that even if aliens attacked Earth, given our hopeless track record (the US nuking Japan, in part, to check the expanding influence of the USSR) I don't know that I believe we would pull together as a people. Even in the face of an existential crisis, and despite our Glorified Leader's appreciation of Camus, a cross section of the elite will become winners, the hoi polloi, losers.

The scene where all militaries of the Earth unite via telegraph to fight against the aliens will become particularly ironic when we go to war with Iran (I believe it shows Iran cooperating).

Also, please respect the GRE words.