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 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

Taiwan Stronger: Ramping Up Defense Resilience to Counter China

Taiwan Stronger: Ramping Up Defense Resilience to Counter China

Monday, March 10, 2025

The direct threat that China poses to Taiwan continues to rise and is far more severe and serious today than ever before. In addition to the increasing daily tempo of gray-zone coercion and armed provocations all around Taiwan, the specter of an outright attack or naval blockade by China looms larger than at any other time in the post-Cold War era.

Type: Analysis

Sectarian Violence Threatens Syria’s Shaky Transition

Sectarian Violence Threatens Syria’s Shaky Transition

Monday, March 10, 2025

Syria is witnessing the most significant sectarian violence since the fall of the Assad regime on December 8, 2024. Unverified estimates put the death toll over 1,000, with civilians comprising the vast majority of those killed. Clashes have largely been centered in Alawite strongholds along Syria’s Mediterranean coast, from the city of Tartus north to Latakia. The violence prompted large-scale protests in Damascus and other cities, while many anxious Alawite families have fled their homes along the coast. Syria’s interim president, Ahmed al-Shara, has called for “civil peace” and announced the launching of an independent committee to investigate the killings.

Type: Question and Answer

Xi Jinping’s Calculus of Cross-Strait Conflict

Xi Jinping’s Calculus of Cross-Strait Conflict

Wednesday, February 19, 2025

The strategic costs to China incurred by a comprehensive military campaign to compel unification with Taiwan likely are myriad and exorbitant. However, Taiwan’s prominent position in the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) core-interest hierarchy complicates assessments of the extent to which any cost drive the party’s decisions regarding use of force for unification. Beijing’s calculation of costs of action versus perceived cost of restraint is a foremost consideration in any Chinese use-of-force equation, and therefore critical in weighing U.S. options for deterring Chinese military action against Taiwan.

Type: Analysis

View All Research & Analysis