Given that failure to enforce its own legislation on narcotics and firearms has led to civil war in its neighbours and armed the insurgents, perhaps the United States has rather more in common with the other failed states than it would like to admit. If incompetence by Mexico's government had led to 40000 violent deaths in the USA (more than ten times 9/11) it is not difficult to imagine the reaction.

The series is priceless

From China to South Afrca, Morrocco to Indonesia and Serbis to Oman, not one citizen therein had a say in drawing one inch of their borders All imposed by London, Paris, Berlin and Moscow. Governed by conquer, divide, incite and rule priciples.

There are thus very few nation states ie.where the vast majority of the poputaion has the same cultural, linguistic and historic identities. Like China, Vietnam, Pillipines, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Thailand, Armenai, Azerabaijan, Singapore, etc.

Not Pakistan borders drawn by 2 Brits; nor Afghanistan , borders drawn 3 Brits and one Rus. Add Burma, Iraq, Syria, Jordan Palestine, Oman, Yemen, Algeria, Sudan and the whole of SubSahara Africa..

These are conceits not nations created by the Eurropean imperialasts. Wherein different mutually hostile nations/tribes have been thrown together And since we were apes, the strong suppresss the weak, as the whites here enslaved the blacks and almost wipe out the natives. To grab land and other resouces. And women.

Americans and others must recognize that borders drawn by European imperial proconsuls do not magically nations make!!! Preserving such Status quo is not tenable. We must accept that many non uni-nation will break up and our job is to figure out how best to minimize the damage, not sqaunder lives and $$ putting the clock back. As in Afghanistan!!

Suda nis a very good case of western blindness. It is as big as EU15, and if imposed on it, would stretch from the Rus border to Nethelands, from Denmark to Sicily, to Crime and back to Minsk. And what has been the record therein of slaughter d boundary changes? Especially 1913-47, when the US and USSR pacified these fragile states? And Sudan has 200+ tribes/nations, dozens of languages. Lumped together by General Kitchener first as a colony of Egypt then of UK. That therefore a nation with peace within?

I don't know about other states but for Pakistan, I would say, Yes, the bulk of problems lie with the colonialism. Why Pakistan is no 12 and India 76, the answer is not ideology but the left over partition agenda of Kashmir which the British left unresolved. Had they given it to either India or Pakistan in 1947, the two neighbors would have been living in a far more pacifist manner. Not only Pakistan would have been a far better performer on any Index but even India would have climbed much up on the ladder.

The Pakistan borders were defined arbitrarily with disputes will all the neighboring countries including China, India, Iran and Afghanistan. The physical infrastructure of the state and political maturity of the ruling classes were much inferior to India, so to counter the hegemony of a powerful neighbor, the state of Pakistan had no choice except to align itself with the West at the cost of alienation of its own people, to go for nuclear assets in spite of extreme poverty, to empower its military at the cost of democracy and civic liberties and to strengthen Mullahs and use the religion as a binding force to keep its divergent communities under a common statehood.

Pakistan has always been in the Western camp from SEATO and SENTO treaties in 1960's to Afghan war against Soviets in 1980s and even as Front line state in war against terror after 9/11. Pakistan helped US and China to have diplomatic relationship back in 1970s as Henry Kissinger flew from Islamabad to Beijing but Pakistanis feel they were left alone whenever they needed the Western help, be it the secessionist movement of 1971 in erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) or the Kashmir and the water issues which can be resolved if US use its international position and broker a deal with India.

It is a chain reaction of events after independence in 1947 in addition to the geographic importance of Pakistan compelling the US, Western powers and even Middle Eastern Arab states to meddle again and again in local politics and national affairs, be it against China, India or Iran. This state of affairs has given Pakistan, its army and ruling elites a bargaining leverage which they have used sometimes very successfully and sometimes otherwise. The people who have suffered the most and in the course of time, they have also learnt how to bargain or blackmail and get huge benefits in their daily life and business. I am afraid who could tame a whole country of 180 million, if they all turn "blackmailers" and I woefully watch where the hell, my dear country is being led to.

I wonder if there are no important raw materials and resources in these so call failed states, whether they are going to pose a grave danger than conquering nation. If some of the resource like oil are not located in the more volatile nation, would we be spending billions of dollars fight wars overseas? I like to believe some wars are fought for the belief of democracy. I cannot help thinking that a large part of the reason is for natural resources.

But if these failed states cannot provide for their basic needs then I can see that it becoming a problem. Whenever there is a state in trouble, they are always looking to the USA to help. And though we should help, we wonder how much help we should give before we decide that we have to concentrate on fixing things in our own back yard first.

We have a hight unemployement rate, people who need to create an income stream war on terrorisim, people losing faith in government and a host of other isuses.

We have to help those countries that have failed so that they don't become a burden to us but we must make sure that we are helping those that are paying their taxes too.

I take issue with the claim that Haiti "threw off the yoke of French colonialism in the time of Napoleon." The French government in 1825 sent a fleet to Haiti and forced them to agree to a crushing debt, well over ten billion dollars by modern standards, to compensate France for "loss of property" during the revolution. The lost property, of course, was the enslaved Haitian people. Haiti spent most of the 19th century paying this debt off.

Fast-forwarding to more recent events, during the Cold War Western nations and the IMF loaned millions to Baby Doc Duvalier, turning a blind eye to his oppression and corruption since he was an anti-communist. This left Haiti buried in debt after the end of his dictatorship. Given this history of heavy debt, forced upon the people by the West and by pro-Western dictators, to imply that Haiti has had two hundred years to develop without Western interference is off the mark.

I think it's important to remember that, being a list, the failed states index is a relative measure. Movement about the index from year to year is not definitively a function of the state itself but also, and as much so, a result of other states movement along the list. For instance, Traub mentions Iraq's ascent from No. 7 to No.9. It just may be, as he says, due in part to diminishing sectarian violence. But it is necessarily also due, say, to unrelated factors that affected Haiti this past year; Haiti moved up the list by 3.6 index points since 2010, a movement almost tantamount to Iraq's movement in the opposite direction of 3.5 index points. And Haiti, for it's part is No. 5 in part because of Haiti but also because of Zimbabwe who moved down the list 3.7 index points. Haiti, Iraq, and Zimbabwe all had almost exactly the same net index change in 2010, yet Haiti moved 6 spots in the list whereas Iraq and Zimbabwe only 2 each. The index does well showing countries in peril but because the index is a relative list, it's important to note that there is a very real skewing affect to this relativity if one puts too much stock in small numerical movements which often end up as the limelit punchlines.

Interesting article with some good points, but I disagree with Traub's use of Somalia as an example of an "....unequivocally failed Muslim state that has, so far, mostly posed a threat to their own societies..." Other than the nuclear weapons scenario, how can he say they [Somalia] is surely less of a danger than Pakistan or Yemen?

One only needs to read open source information about the Horn of Africa to see that the U.S. military prescence in Djibouti is not only there for Yemen. Two, look at where most of the apprehended suspected U.S. homegrown or immigrant terrorists are getting their training from in the last few years: Somalia. If that does not affect U.S. national security, then I don't know what does.

Al-Shabab is not some rinky-tink operation; it is very connected to AQAP (al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula) and pretty much dominates the AQHA (al-Qaeda on the Horn of Africa). Piracy on the Horn is not by coincidence either. Protection of the Suez Canal and Indian Ocean waterways is definitely an American national security issue.

Traub's quote of Patrick Stewart's words, "...terrorists need infrastructure too..." is true, but to simply believe that infrastructure is reserved only for "middle-class" organizations is far off-base of the capabilities of modern terrorists; especially in "failed states". Look at the "Twitter Revolutions" of the "Arab Spring".

So, to not list Somalia as "global menace" when it comes to U.S. national security at this time is not a wise strategy. When leaders classifiy terrorism, Somalia's Al-Shabab (or individual trained sleeper cells) definitely meet the criteria of high terrorist-threat levels (ideology, history, intent, capabilities, & targeting) that can wreak havoc globally.

If you disagree with me, then ask the residents of LA, Minneapolis, or Detroit what they think...

The US (and Western World) of course needs a foreign policy towards failed states, weak states etc but it is probably best done on a country by country basis. Broad brush cateogries are useful for thinking purposes but not as a precursor to a one size fits all failed states or weak states policy.

Certainly the worst option of all is to aggressively support a failing brutal totalitatian regime just because you are concerned that if it falls the new regime will be pro XYZ terrorist group. That is because when it does fail you will have entirely justified that populations support for XYZ. No policy would have been better.

The best option for foreign policy and something which the West is getting better at is backing winners. Whatever happens after Libya falls the general populace have seen with their own eyes Western planes help them in their time of need. Yes thats right Western planes not Al Queda planes! That will count in the West's favour. Now that is good foreign policy.

I mention this because I DJed at a wedding of an ex pat Libyan (am a London wedding DJ do for fun really) in oil or somethig he could not speak more highly of the English heroes helping his country and wants to invite them all to his new home in Libya when he returns. Now that is what we want to hear about our foreign policy.

My final thought is lets not pretend we can solve every countries problems (eg tribal conflicts in certain African states). In these circumstances the West should surely focus more on aid for refugees and not directly intervene

While it is saddening to see the plight of the global poor there is a limit to how much one country can do to support the poor of the entire world.

At some point the people of a country must decide that they will not tolerate corrupt religious and government leaders before their country can improve.

Outside nations can not make this decision for the people of any country. The citizens of the country must decide that it is better to die fighting for their freedom than to live under slavery, whether the slavery is the result of a corrupt government or a corrupt religion.

Until till this happens we will continue to have failed states such as N. Korea that cares more for it's ruling elite than the citizens of their nation.

Chang Sun Seward

"What has been the consequence to Americans? The cost of coltan, a material mined in Congo and used in cell phones, has been extremely volatile. It's hard to think of anything else."

It's hard to think of anything else. Really? How about thinking about the 5 million people that have died since the mid-1990's, instead of equating death to the cost of mobile phones on Americans?
- Christening Gifts

There are many types of failed states. They can go bankrupt, or are on the verge of bankruptcy, they can have enough money but it is very unfairly divided (top class enjoying the luxury while masses are poor and cannot live a respectable life), states with a lot of crime, states with a lot of corruption etc.
All of them are failed in a way. But there has to be a sort of division, because it's not all the same. If for example a mercedes benz houston dealer whines about how texas is a failed state is something else as when a mother cries over her dead child's body because he was killed by a strayed bullet. And yes, the there will be a different response from such victims and "victims" in the long term.