In theory, at least, the US could live up to its putative Hobbesian responsibility and actually impose order and security on Iraq, creating a true state (monopolizing the means of violence). In that case, we might not see the kind of chaos that Carrol refers to.
This kind of "nation-building" is the kind of thing that many Democrats want, arguing that the US needs to put more resources -- especially troops -- into Iraq, getting away from the Rumsfeldian war "on the cheap." Of course, the current US fiscal deficit, lack of legitimacy of the war, and absence of support from the allies, makes this type of policy quite unlikely to be implemented.
If the Hobbesian policy were to be successful, it would likely create a state run by a Friend of Dubya, a veritable Quisling. The longer the US stays in, and the more successful its efforts at creating order, etc., the more this is likely.
On the other hand, truly establishing a state in Iraq requires more than Hobbesian power. It also requires legitimacy (nowadays termed "soft power"). This would mean giving all sorts of power to Iraqis. Permanent US bases would have to be forsworn. Full power over Iraqi oil would have to be given to Iraqis. Etc.
The Bushmasters lean heavily toward the force-and-power-are-everything philosophy, especially since making concessions to the Iraqis threatens to make the whole war pointless. Actually reconstructing the Iraqi economy is also expensive and becoming more expensive by the day. I expect, therefore, that they'll try to shove order down Iraqi throats. Given the lack of legitimacy, this effort will likely fail, except superficially. Then the US won't be able to pull its troops out, since Iraq would simply revert to civil war and chaos.
I'd hate to be the President after Bush.
The US should pay reparations to Iraq. But of course that would require a new Versailles Treaty to impose such a rule. That in turn requires that the US lose the war...
-- Jim Devine "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" -- Richard Feynman