Failing States and US Intervention

In recent decades, the United States’ foreign policy has exhibited a frequent pattern of intervention in failing and weak states. Notable since the end of the Cold War, it has been made apparent that the potential threats of failing states is larger than that of nations of independent, more powerful nations. The threat of failing states to breed terrorism, neglect human rights, and fail to uphold implementations of basic environmental policy and disease control are some of the main problems that attract interest from the United States. This goal of the United States’ foreign policy, to harness these developing, weak nations, was widely supported by government decision makers in the 90’s, however, recent intervention in states of the Middle East has brought people to question weather or not the intervention in failing states should be a foreign policy goal that the United States continues to display.

Directly after the end of the Cold War, the United States was viewed as the sole super power. After their communist advocating foes and all their children-states began to crumble, the United States had a seemingly overflow of power that they could potentially wield upon weaker states of interest which could in turn create advantages economically and militarily. Support of this policy, which really didn’t even yield any textbook, concrete successes, only increased after 9/11 when it became apparent that the most dangerous states to the United States were not large, capable nations of the world, but rather weak and failing states. These states, often located in Africa and the Middle East, were quickly realized to be harbors of terrorism, which was now clearly a threat to United States security. It was at this time that intervention of what we considered failing states was widely supported and deemed necessary. However, just a decade later, intervention in the same region of similar failing states is beginning to be thought twice about. Today, the years of intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq are criticized regularly. Support for continued investment, militarily, in these places has dropped significantly since those months following 9/11. The amount of money the United States has sent, along with the United States human and financial military investment, has been a reason for lost support of intervention in these places. Instances like Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which exhibit characteristics of a failing state, and the mission disasters of Somalia and similar countries, which bring back the same questions asked during the years in Vietnam, back the notion that maybe the US should take a break from entering these weak states.

It seems as though there will always be failing states for the US to intervene. The current situation of civil war and insecurity in Somalia would undoubtedly have received US intervention fifteen or even ten years ago. But after the questionable involvement in similar states in the Middle East over the past decade, actions made toward Syria may be different. How would involvement in the Syria by the US be advantageous to the US? How could we be sure that mistakes made in Afghanistan and other weak nations don’t happen again in Syria? Can the United States afford to intervene in Syria? These questions, in regard to recent intervention of failing states direct me to think Syria is not worth it. Syria and a few other countries are the latest failing states that the United States has had it’s eye on in recent years. But this time, I think the US should back down and see what happens should they not intervene in a failing state of the Middle East. Should the US not like the results, investment in Syria and like places can be discussed, but for now, it think it would be wise economically and considered popular not to jump into yet another failing state which holds the potential to again hurt us more than it’s helped.

Source: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140347/michael-j-mazarr/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-failed-state-paradigm