It's rather too early to declare Libya to be Afghanistan, especially considering the numerous rather vast differences between their predicaments and histories.

What if there is no order that doesn't depend fundamentally on "falsehood," with the only possible exception being the ones that depend on unmasked threat (though those don't last very long)? I put "falsehood" in quotes because the fact that the self-explanation of the system is incomplete and distorted doesn't mean that it actually runs on falsehood. Maybe it just means that its truth remains un-articulated.The actual falsehood would then lie in the discourse, shared both by the powerful and by those who claim to oppose them, that pretends to know and to explain, when in fact it knows very little, including in regard to its own limitations.

Useful to everyone who prefers order to chaos, "us" to "them" - in other words useful to everyone who's got anything left to lose, or who is afraid for self or others.

The liberal faith is that it can all be held together and advanced as pure reason. Even the libertarian and anarchistic extremes embody this notion, though usually flowing from alternative premises. The arguably more radical thought in critical respects and implications more conservative notion is that we never get to public reason, or sustain it, except in the context of a much greater, deeper, and more complex web of commitments.

Not sure how sanguine we should be about the laying bare process. If the general replacement of convenient fictions by harsh truths was painless and predictable, if the fictions never served any useful or necessary purpose, then no one would have ever preferred to believe them. It could be that the inability to sustain them corresponds to a process of decline, which is not necessarily the same as, or experienced as, progress.