Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post

US policy makers absolutely refused to see it for what it was: a non-state that had failed in its attempts (and ours as the West) to make it so. Because they refused to see it for what it was, we could not hope to address what it was going to become.

That is where I see the problem with the failed state moniker--most of the time the failed state was never a state to begin with. By that I mean a nation of people who saw themselves as a national body without having a gun at their collective heads. In these cases, we are not negotiating with governments, we are talking to individual leaders who may or may not actually control all, part, or none of the area in question. Our system of diplomacy including international diplomacy is built on the exact opposite premise: that governments control all regions and that if you plug into the correct government you can influence its behavior.
Great comment Tom.

I'll be bold here and suggest that we're making the same mistake in Afghanistan. We've been working hard - or trying to - on governance for many years now and it should be not surprise that success hasn't yet come. IMO the only way "Afghanistan" will survive as a state in the long term is through a loose federation and not the centralized government structure that now exists.