When you have destroyed the instruments of government, and sent a third of the troops necessary to keep order, the chaos is simply unstoppable - and will be unstoppable under these circumstances, indefinitely. -AS
Indefinitely? Gosh, even the 30 Years War ended.
If "under these circumstances" is the latch-hook defense of that criticism, then I'd simply say, agreed. So much only implies that the status-quo has to be continually challenged, so that circumstances are changing. This is another reason why I don't like Kaplan's throwing his hands up that nothing can be done until the next Presidency. The next "strategic review" point will probably come in the late fall, if not sooner. THIS President is still on the hook (not just because of some theory of mine, but because the people's soldiers are in harms way).
PARSING THE LIBERAL-CONSERVATIVE DIVIDE
I wonder how much of the sentiment behind the assessment of this quote is distinctively non-liberal? "Order" is a fragile thing, to many a Conservative mind, threatened existentially by 'radicals'. Without levers of 'control', they have deep anxiety from their impotence, almost unlimited fear and anger at any object preventing its re-establishment.
Liberals tend to have a different view of the individual and faith in humanity. They might believe that order can come out of chaos, rather than it having to be imposed (although, it is not a simple dynamic to get from "a" to "b" on that, admittedly).
EXITING THE MAZE - EYES ON THE PRIZE, BUT NOT BUSH'S CONCEPTION OF IT
The only things we know for certain are that people will not live with chaos and without a government. At some point, they will either make rational sacrifices or they will be forced to sell their freedom for security, that is, make irrational sacrifices. These are the real tipping points in today's Iraqi political-conflict, in my estimation.From a game-theoretic perspective, the way to force cooperation is to make it plain that neither "side" will be allowed to win. This is easy to say, but hard to do.
