The current conventional wisdom, voiced by the president and parroted by most of our public officials, is that if we leave, Iraq will fall into anarchy with civil war among the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. The failed state will become a terrorist haven or a prize to be fought over by its neighbors.

That is the conclusion under which our "best minds" are operating. But is it true? The president has said we must look at the "bigger picture." He is right. But what he neglects to add is that his vision of the future is not the only one.

For instance, the nightmare scenario for other Muslim nations - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, even Muslim countries in Southeast Asia - is much different. They believe America's headlong invasion of secular Iraq has opened a Pandora's Box of religious strife long thought to be fading into history or at least contained. The worldwide divide between majority Sunnis and minority Shiites now threatens fragile nations large and small.

Worse, it has left Shiite Iran the most powerful Muslim voice in the Middle East. That, in turn, has made the chronic restlessness of ambitious Shiite minorities reach critical mass in nations striving for moderation and progress. It has strengthened the hand of regressive Muslim fundamentalism everywhere.

All of that is, they believe, the direct result of our aggressive ignorance of a culture we decided to change by force of arms rather than the slower, surer force of economic example, at which we are experts.

Now we face this question: Will our leaving the battlefield help or hinder the pursuit of peace and progress in that historically backward religion? The truth is that nobody knows.

We must be suspicious of any public official who begins a sentence with, "One thing we know for sure..." because no one knows anything for sure in this context. History has been a cruel teacher on that matter.

As the end of our Civil War approached, the best minds were "sure" that pockets of Southern guerillas would fight from the hills of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Alabama for generations and that Gen. Kirby Smith would form a rogue state in the "Trans-Mississippi" and fight on. God knows the South had troubles enough for the next century, but none were those predicted by the "best minds."

Toward the end of World War II those "best minds" told us of Germany's "National Redoubt" in the foothills of the Alps where fanatical Nazis would extend the war for decades. It turned out to be a myth.

The same "best minds" were sure that our leaving Vietnam would set up the "domino effect" of Communist China filling the void and every other nation in Southeast Asia falling under Communism. There were terrible consequences for some Vietnamese, but none were those we predicted and now Vietnam is a trading partner welcoming President Bush for a visit.

Perhaps the aftermath of a pullout of American combat troops will have the result the current administration believes. Perhaps not. Isn't it just as likely that our presence is the actual cause of the insurgency and the fuel for the sectarian violence so feared by Muslims everywhere? Isn't it just as possible that we can be more help to the moderate forces there from afar than from the middle of the cauldron? Polls indicate the Iraqis themselves think so.

Finally, isn't whatever is going to happen in Iraq just as likely to happen five years from tomorrow as it is tomorrow? Isn't the only real difference the number of young Americans who will be killed in the meantime?

It is time we became our own "best minds." We can't do any worse.

Nick Clooney writes for The Post every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mails sent to Nick at nickclooney@cincypost.com will be forwarded to him via regular mail.