Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
If you don't think we are interested in stability, then what do you think the objective is or should be?

Best, Rob
I think we want more than just stability, we want a form of stability that works for us and that's often not the most naturally stable option.

Stability under Saddam was unacceptable and like I said, if someone could scientifically prove - and this is obviously hypothetical - that dividing Iraq into three countries would cause stability, we still wouldn't do it. Democracy in Iraq hasn't produced much stability. Obviously, an "iron fist" could produce stability faster, but we won't go down that road. (BTW I'm not saying we should, just that logically we should if stability was our only objective.)

I'm actually working on a theory about the behavior of "inkspots" but it is difficult to define the geopolitical limits of COIN in a thousand words or less - while working a full time job - so it's possible I might never succeed.

Basically, I think the idea that we can be part of the political foundation then replace one US "brick" at a time without making the foundation unstable can work in certain circumstances, but not all the time.

Assuming for the moment that the factors you discuss are necessary for stability, are they sufficient? Will they work every time, or are there other factors that could cause instability anyway? If so, what are they?