| Description |
1 online resource (33 pages) |
| Series |
CSIS, Burke Chair in Strategy |
| Contents |
the second half of victory. 2 metrics 2 But, warning signals are warning signals 3 "Scores" for MENA and other conflict countries 4 Governance ratings 6 and security burden challenges 7 Comparing population pressure: 1950-2050 9 Comparing the youth "bulge" 11 Comparing economic challenges 14 Educational dependency, and medical challenges |
| Summary |
It has long been all too clear that the U.S. has gradually built up the military capability to help local powers defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq without having strategy for dealing with the host of other problems that exist in bringing any kind of lasting stability to the region. We are effectively fighting "failed state wars" in ways that only address half the problem. The end result is that Syria and Iraq remain deeply divided. Rival outside powers like Iran, Russia, Turkey, and various Arab states compete with the U.S. for influence, and the sectarian, ethnic, economic, and other problems that helped lead to the rise of ISIS have grown worse with each year of fighting. More broadly, all of the countries in North Africa and the Levant face critical economic and political challenges, Libya is divided by civil war, and Lebanon and Egypt face serious internal stability problems. The Gulf states are generally wealthier, but not necessarily more stable. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states are divided against each other, and Saudi Arabia and the UAE face growing challenges from the cost of their wars and military expenditures. Yemen and Somalia are also divided by civil wars, with governance and economic problems as great as their security challenges. ... The situation is no better in Pakistan, or in most of the countries in the Horn of Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa where the U.S. is providing aid to various host governments in fighting Islamist extremism, insurgencies, and civil wars. The mixes of failed governance, political unity, and economic development differ from country to country, but none have yet shown they can come to grips with their civil challenges and that defeating today's extremist threat will bring lasting stability. Part of the problem lies in a U.S. failure to honestly assess the level of risk on the civil side of the struggle to bring some form of lasting stability to nations that are vulnerable to extremist movements and/or caught up in deep civil divisions and problems. The focus on the terrorist and military threat has produced some real progress in fighting ISIS, but the failure to understand just how serious failures are on the civil side--and dismissing the need for "nation building"--Has led the U.S. to fight only half the "war." |
| Notes |
"March 22, 2017." |
| Bibliography |
Includes bibliographical references |
| Notes |
Online resource; title from PDF title page (CSIS, viewed January 4, 2017) |
| Subject |
National security -- Middle East
|
|
National security -- Africa, North
|
|
Governance -- Middle East
|
|
Governance -- Africa, North
|
|
Demography -- Middle East
|
|
Demography -- Africa, North
|
|
Development -- Middle East
|
|
Development -- Africa, North
|
|
Education -- Middle East
|
|
Education -- Africa, North
|
|
Health.
|
|
health.
|
|
Demography.
|
|
Education.
|
|
Health.
|
|
National security.
|
|
North Africa.
|
|
Middle East.
|
| Form |
Electronic book
|
| Author |
Cordesman, Anthony H.
|
|
Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington, D.C.). Washington DC.
Burke Chair in Strategy.e
|
|
