Eddie Beaver

Heightening clashes over political speech within churches between activist pastors and the government are building up to a climatic showdown in the courts. As well, the odds are quite favorable for a breakout in the foreign policy arena, via the creation and funding of Christian private security contractors as part of a forcefully activist and energized evangelical community. The catalyst could be the bloody prelude and nightmarish aftermath of South Sudan's 2011 vote for secession from the North. I considered this nearly two years ago and now believe it to be more than a mere possibility. The indictment of Sudanese leader Omar Al-Bashir by the ICC, the failure of the international community to achieve anything resembling stability in Sudan's restless provinces and the prospect of further international humiliation in the Congo and Somalia would appear to embolden the Sudanese elite who will rely increasingly on the exploitation of the South's resources to maintain power and fear little of consequences. Would the UNSC even recognize the will of the South at the price of having to begin what would be the first (of many) internationally mandated breaking up of a faux state created by the Europeans? I highly doubt it. The devastation of the South at the hands of the Khartoum regime could unleash a torrent of rage among evangelicals.  How that rage is translated into action in 2011 beyond protest and condemnation could be the story of a religious clash in the making in 2012. The closer to fact than myth fate of the Christian South at the hands of the Islamic North could be fodder for Christians at arms for years to come. Even in, indeed, especially in, what could be a more fractured world after the economic meltdown. UPDATE: Of course, this can be seen as a market response to a need, as Adam Elkus helpfully points out in his "A Private War" post.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reports the dominating fear in the Obama foreign policy camp:

Where the discussion isn't going, at least in public,  (or the PR level), is the possibility that the first foreign policy crisis the administration will face will be the complete economic collapse of a large, unstable nation. To be sure, Pakistan is nearly broke, and U.S. policy makers seem to be aware of that; but a worldwide demand crisis could lead to social unrest in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, Singapore, the Ukraine, Japan, Turkey or Egypt (which is facing an internal political crisis of epic proportions already). The U.S. won't have the resources to, say, engineer the rescue of the peso again, or intervene in Asia as in 1997.

That said, this topic seems ripe for the sort of think tank 2.0 efforts that Michael Tanji (the originator), ZenPundit, Lexington Green,  Shlok and others have utilized lately. I noticed John Robb discussing this a few weeks ago with regards to Mexico and China. I imagine the scale could be grander than that, given how much risk is eminent. How much could be done at this point by global entities and so-called great powers to forestall this? What sort of reaction can one expect to such a collapse? What would it look like in-country and what sort of ripple effects would it have? Who is more likely to fail early-on? Who are the dark horse candidates?