I think "destabilization" is simply being used as a
euphemism for mass suffering caused by catastrophic change.
I mean WE get all upset if an outside force simply destabilizes
our stock market. Imagine how we might react if somone came
along and destabilized our legal system, our political system and took
away instant replay for use by NFL judges? Not funny now!
I think it was Durkheim who pointed out the differences between societies
based on "mechanical solidarity" and those based on "organic solidarity".
Any attempts to impose our will on these countries will not result in
organic solidarity for them. It will be artificial and resented.
In short I don't think we will be able to impose the "right" answer on them.
The reasons why Western governments and societies are (internally) relatively
stable and peaceable is that most of us have come to accept that our current system emerged over time. ie. It wasn't imposed or influenced by an outside force. Imagine how resentful we might be if we discovered that the US is in fact
owned by a select few who impose their own agendas on the government by subsidising their getting into power in the first place?
(Hang on........need to think that over).
If we dropped Britney Spears from 30,000 feet......how would that be?

My point is......destabilization followed by......what?
Destabilize. Destabilize. Destabilize. If that fails...destabilize again.
If that fails destabilize some more. If that fails.......keep destabilizing.

Its quite likely that change could improve things for
people living in Iraq. But with regards to the destiny of people in Egypt, Libya, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Iran etc.......its easy to envisage scenarios in which things would get worse.