> For example, consider a country that, wanting to inspire regime change in another country, I would propose a different observation regarding international af

> For example, consider a country that, wanting to inspire regime change in another country, I would propose a different observation regarding international affairs which is that it is simply a problem space above human capacity to solve. I say this because I believe this author is incorrect that the people making foreign policy decisions are not thinking "smart enough". I believe they spend a good deal of their time "gaming out" their decisions, building computer models which justify their decisions and contemplating exactly the kind of second and third order consequences they're talking about. Rather the problem is precisely their logification of the problem. They are too smart and get caught up in their own labyrinth of logic. A lot of the bad choices countries have made over the years could be stopped by some very basic first order thinking. Things like, 99% of the time contributing to violence in a country is bad and leaves the people there more extreme and more violent. (Yes I grant you fighting Hitler was good.) The Rand Corporation's failure over the years to provide good outcomes is almost a perfect example of how an attempt to build a better diplomat has utterly failed. In my opinion there are just classes of problems which in practical terms are unsolvable and it is wise therein to take direct action on the few things you can be certain of and scrupulous about the rest.