Foreign Policy: The Failed States Index
(You have to register in order to actually see the index itself...)
Posted on 07/05/2006 6:02:41 PM PDT by neverdem
The Fund for Peace recently released its second annual report on countries at risk of devolving into anarchy, civil war, chaos, and collapse. Dubbed the “Failed States Index,” the listing rates more than 140 countries based on 12 key indicators. The first edition of the FSI was released last summer in partnership with Foreign Policy magazine. Although it garnered little fanfare in major U.S. media outlets, Americans should take notice of the countries at the top—or bottom, rather—of the FSI. After all, this is where much of America’s blood and treasure is being spent.
The FSI’s 12-part formula for failure includes evidence of:
Put it all together and, according to the authors of the index, the result is a profile of “new world disorder”—disorder that American troops and taxpayers are often called upon to repair. Indeed, we can virtually plot U.S. intervention around the globe by glancing at this year’s “bottom twenty.”
By my count, the United States has engaged in military operations in just about half of these failing states over the past 15 years, including Sudan (which has the unhappy distinction of topping the list), Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Liberia. Plus, as The Washington Post has reported, U.S. forces recently have been deployed to Chad (6th on the FSI) as part of the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Initiative, which aims to assist indigenous armies in blocking the jihadist push into Africa. And the U.S. is still technically at war with yet another member of this miserable group—North Korea. Given recent events, it may not be a technicality for long. (By the way, the U.S. ranks 128th on the FSI, with the left-leaning Fund for Peace raising warnings about the country’s “uneven economic development” and immigration problems. Norway is rated last, making it the most successful state, one is left to presume.)
Other countries of interest following close behind the bottom twenty include U.S. drug-war ally Colombia (27th), U.S. client Egypt (31st), and U.S. semi-protectorate Bosnia (35th). In fact, five countries that just missed the bottom twenty—Bosnia, Nigeria, Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan—have hosted U.S. forces in recent years (or are still hosting them). And the U.S. has played a supportive role in other bottom twenty states— helping allies such as the U.K., France, and Canada intervene in Congo and Ivory Coast; underwriting a myriad of U.N. and African Union operations; and deploying advisers into places like Nigeria on “training operations.”
Predictably, some U.S. troops have been called upon to do far more than training. Indeed, literally thousands of Americans have died in these failing states over the last several years to feed the hungry in Somalia, to uproot tyranny and plant democracy in Haiti and Iraq, to hunt for mass-murderers in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to promote stability in Yemen, and to protect oil flowing from the barren Middle East.
Of course, the cost is not only paid in blood. It’s also paid in treasure. In 2004-05, American taxpayers poured more than $25 billion in foreign-aid assistance into the FSI’s bottom 31 countries. And that doesn’t include the billions spent on military operations.
It is ironic that the one thing that makes these countries so irrelevant to the U.S.—namely, their weakness—is the very thing that ultimately threatens the U.S. Indeed, we overlook failed and failing states at our own peril: After the defeat of the Soviet army, a crumbling Afghanistan was considered unimportant to most Americans—that is, until September 11, 2001.
Alan Dowd is a contributing writer with The American Enterprise, weekly columnist at The American Enterprise Online, and a senior fellow at Sagamore Institute for Policy Research.
I am left wonder what the point of this article, if any, is? The world is a nasty mess place over run with thugs? Uh, we know that.
Then there are the gross factual errors. "U.S. semi-protectorate Bosnia (35th)." Factually untrue, Clinton, the idiot turned this over to the UN.
U.S. client Egypt (31st)
Utter nonsense that. Egypt is no client of the US. No more then Israel or Saudi Arabia or Japan or Great Britain or South Korea is.
By my count, the United States has engaged in military operations in just about half of these failing states over the past 15 years, including Sudan (which has the unhappy distinction of topping the list),
Statistical manipulations to draw and complete meaningless conclusion. US Troops have also deployed to dozens of countries in the last 15 years NOT on this list. Deployment of US troops to evacuate US embassies (Liberia) or on Humanitarian Missions (Pakistan) do not logically fit the conclusions this author seems to be drawing.
Foreign Policy: The Failed States Index
(You have to register in order to actually see the index itself...)
"US Troops have also deployed to dozens of countries in the last 15 years NOT on this list. Deployment of US troops to evacuate US embassies (Liberia) or on Humanitarian Missions (Pakistan) do not logically fit the conclusions this author seems to be drawing."
IMO this only shows that instead of not giving a crap like most of the world we sacrafice our young men and women to try and help others.
Funny how they all want our money too.
To Avoid Full Scale Civil War in Iraq, the Fund for Peace Calls for International Negotiations on Regional Decentralization or Peaceful Partition of the Country
|
Dr. Pauline H. Baker, author of the report, says: "The center is not holding in Iraq. We can no longer pretend that a weak central government can reverse these worsening trends. The deterioration has gone too far. The nature and scope of violence, factionalization within and between the major groups, the proliferation of militias, and intensifying group vengeance and fear of retribution are driving Iraq into de facto partition. We must face these facts."
[More on download page.]
Mexico didn't make the list?
What's this "we"?
No kidding!
They're located in Washington D.C., but they repeatedly refer to the UN and the 'international community'. But my guess is they assume to speak for the whole world, not just the US - narcissism is a prominent feature of liberal peaceniks, so this would be my conclusion, for what its worth.
I noticed that the links I posted don't work correctly, so I'm correcting them here:
IMHO, I thought his point was whether you use sociological metrics favored by the left such as the Fund for Peace article, or the historical record of U.S. military intervention, we ignore these states at our own risk.
"It is ironic that the one thing that makes these countries so irrelevant to the U.S.—namely, their weakness—is the very thing that ultimately threatens the U.S. Indeed, we overlook failed and failing states at our own peril: After the defeat of the Soviet army, a crumbling Afghanistan was considered unimportant to most Americans—that is, until September 11, 2001."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
