The Fragility Study Group is an independent, non-partisan, effort of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Center for a New American Security and the United States Institute of Peace. The chair report of the study group, U.S. Leadership and the Challenge of State Fragility, was released on September 12. This brief is part of a series authored by scholars from the three institutions that build on the chair report to discuss the implications of fragility on existing U.S. tools, strategic interests and challenges. 

Since the end of the Cold War, every President has been forced – sometimes proactively, sometimes reluctantly – to conduct war in a fragile state. Each time, the U.S. has tried a different strategy in an attempt to learn from past mistakes. Yet regardless of the particulars—composition of forces, leadership, and international engagement—in each case the states remained fragile or failed and required ongoing international intervention for years to come. After a quarter century, it appears to many that, in the fragile states where the U.S. has committed the most money, blood, and effort, there are no solutions. 

Why are these countries not able to rebuild, as Germany and Japan were able to after World War II? Why have none of our largest interventions in the post-Cold War era seemed to work?  

In fact, as James Dobbins and Laurel Miller of RAND have found, international post-conflict efforts have been on the whole far more successful than is generally acknowledged.1 But recent high-profile U.S. failures have been particularly costly to the idea of U.S. leadership and effectiveness.2 The reality is that the U.S. has tended to focus on rebuilding state structures through outside assistance. But in the absence of an inclusive state-society compact, post-conflict states are extremely likely to return to conflict.3 It’s time to shift our focus from outside state-building to helping societies rebuild themselves from the inside.

Stephen J. Hadley is the chair of the board of directors at the U.S. Institute of Peace and Rachel Kleinfeld is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.


Related Research & Analysis

What DRC-Rwanda Peace Deal Means for the U.S. and Africa’s Mineral-Rich Great Lakes Region

What DRC-Rwanda Peace Deal Means for the U.S. and Africa’s Mineral-Rich Great Lakes Region

Thursday, July 3, 2025

Last Friday, the foreign ministers of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) met in Washington to sign an agreement to end 30 years of conflict in Africa’s Great Lakes region. The peace deal was accompanied by commitments to build a “regional economic integration framework” and promises of U.S. investment in eastern DRC’s abundant critical mineral reserves, among other commercial agreements.

Type: Question and Answer

With Cease-fire Holding, Can Israel and Iran Move Toward De-escalation?

With Cease-fire Holding, Can Israel and Iran Move Toward De-escalation?

Wednesday, June 25, 2025

Israel’s stunning and sophisticated June 13 attack on Iran set off a worrying 12-day escalatory spiral. Iran responded in short order with ballistic missile and drone strikes, which led to a series of tit-for-tat exchanges between the two sides. A cease-fire is now in place -- but will it hold?

Type: Analysis

The Element of Surprise: Space and Cyber Warfare in U.S.-China Rivalry

The Element of Surprise: Space and Cyber Warfare in U.S.-China Rivalry

Wednesday, June 18, 2025

The 2024 revelations over China’s effort to implant malware in critical U.S. infrastructure by the Volt Typhoon hacking group — as well as the Salt Typhoon group’s successful breaching of at least nine major U.S. telecoms — have renewed concern over Beijing’s constant, ongoing efforts to hack Western companies, governments and non-governmental organizations. Unlike past incidents, like those involving Chinese military unit 61398, which were largely about cyber espionage, the Volt Typhoon group was actively implanting malware designed to disrupt critical infrastructure such as water and power systems.

Type: Analysis

What Do Changes in China’s Nuclear Program Mean for India?

What Do Changes in China’s Nuclear Program Mean for India?

Thursday, March 13, 2025

At the end of 2024, the annual U.S. Department of Defense report on military and security developments in China reinforced evolving assessments of China’s rapid nuclear expansion with an alarming projection: The U.S. expects China to have 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030 despite having maintained a nuclear arsenal of approximately 300 warheads for decades.

Type: Analysis

View All Research & Analysis