Known and unknown dangers.

• Author: Ullman, Harlan
• Position: Terrorism

LOOKING BEYOND the "usual suspects for global mischief-making, there are potential crises that could both truly surprise us in 2006 and prove enormously disruptive to our interests and well-being. Three profoundly different states offer an aperture into what could become nasty and dangerous surprises. Only one--Iraq--is an obvious candidate. Nigeria and the United States are the other two. Yes, there could also be pleasant surprises--Berlin Walls and additional obstacles to peace and stability could come tumbling down as well. My sense is that these more optimistic scenarios are less likely to occur, and my only hope is that this intuition proves faulty.

In assessing future danger, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has identified "known unknowns and unknown unknowns." Known unknowns are threats and dangers that arise from known trouble spots such as Iraq, the War on Terror, Iran and North Korea. Specific events, such as future terrorist attacks or Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, may not be fully predictable, but they are not unexpected.

Unknown unknowns are bolts from the blue both in terms of specific events and the source. Hamas's electoral victory in Palestine--and how it takes on the responsibility of governing--illustrates this case. The election results were not expected, hence not knowable, and the consequences of this election constitute many unknowns that also are unknowable and unpredictable now.

Rumsfeld's terminology is imperfect. What is really known or unknown, for example, is not always clear. Today's enemy could be tomorrow's friend and vice versa. Though we do not like to admit it, in the 1980s, Saddam Hussein was useful to us in the attempt to counter-balance Iran after the fall of the shah, and our relations with Baghdad were quite friendly.

So-called knowns can become unknowns and vice versa. France's opposition to the war in Iraq was in direct contrast to its position on fighting terror, cooperating in Afghanistan and in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But Rumsfeld's dialectic is useful in deducing some of the potentially more spectacular unforeseen dangers that may emerge, especially in places where we think we "know" enough so as not to be caught thoroughly off guard.

Consider Iraq, Nigeria and the United States. One common (and perhaps surprising) thread between, and among, each is that all three states are struggling to achieve the key objective of stability. Iraq and Nigeria are focusing within their borders. The United States is outside looking in. The question is which known or unknown unknowns could precipitate the nastiest of surprises?

Getting to Know Iraq

IN IRAQ, we know many things. We know that Iraq faces a long, hard struggle to rebuild itself and repair or replace its crippled and still vulnerable infrastructure. We know that the insurgency refuses to die and that insurgents are becoming far more politically, operationally and technologically sophisticated in applying terror and violence. And we know that the United States will begin a force withdrawal that could be significant in the size of the reductions.

...