[melancholy]

When dictators are wiping out entire neighborhoods to quell the constant threat of insurrection, the situation is obviously not "stable."

When this is done, "stability" through fear is established for decades.

Hafez al Assad wiped out a whole city in Northern Syria, Hamah, with artillery and tanks. Since this happened, "stability" reigns in Syria through Assad Jr's reign as president.

This is how the cookie crumbles in these parts of the world, unfortunately.

[A_perfect_lady]

Well, if this constitutes "stability" then I don't see it as a state to be desired and I cannot wish Saddam back to restore it.

[Dr. Frank fan]

When this is done, "stability" through fear is established for decades.

I think the real issue is, what the hell good is this sort of "stability" and why on earth are we supposed to find it desirable?

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are relatively "stable" and those societies produced the 9/11 hijackers. Actually, once the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan things became "stable" there (by your measure), and they proceeded to make Osama their defense minister & give Al Qaeda safe haven.

So yes, please, explain to me why this sort of "stability" in these places is a thing to be longed for by us?