The concept of the ‘failed state’ has been on our tongues (including mine) this week with regard to Haiti, which many have asserted exemplifies something about Haitian society. But the columnist argues that it essentially blames the victim while “simultaneously justifying either intervention (poor things) or abstention (they’re hopeless)”; in essence, is it a construct of the foreign policy of the superpowers? Interestingly, he applies the concept to American intentions toward Iraq, noting that it is easier to destroy a society than to “nation-build” and that recognizing that the US would be in control of whether the Iraqi nation-state descended into chaos was a factor in planning the invasion all along. ‘Failing’ another nation, i.e. causing it to become a ‘failed nation’, is an instrument of US policy and was part of the plan in Iraq.

Or take Iraq. Shia leader Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani blamed the U.S. for failing to take security measures before this week’s grisly bombings. We warned them, he said. Is he just being an ingrate? The rational people in the Bush government knew, before the war, that the likely outcome of overthrowing Saddam would be civil war and chaos. (The fanatics among them believed a miraculous, U.S.-style, democratic transformation would occur.) The question is: Did they find such an outcome acceptable?

I know it seems counterintuitive. Globalizing business leaders and foreign-policy wonks are supposed to value stability. But there may be cases where it’s unavailable, or its price is too high. In that case, “failing” a state might offer its own perks.—Globe and Mail