Although long a component of U.S. foreign policy, successive U.S. Administrations have explicitly identified weak or failing states as U.S. national security concerns since 1998. The past three U.S. National Security Strategy documents all point to several threats emanating from states that are variously described as weak, fragile, vulnerable, failing, precarious, failed, in crisis, or collapsed. These threats include providing safe havens for terrorists, organized crime, and other illicit groups; causing or exacerbating conflict, regional instability, and humanitarian emergencies; and undermining efforts to promote democracy, good governance, and economic sustainability. The President, in his 2005 National Security Presidential Directive ( NSPD ) 44, asserts that "the United States should work ... to anticipate state failure, avoid it whenever possible, and respond quickly and effectively when necessary and appropriate...." To this end, the Administration has established as a goal the "transformation" of U.S. national security institutions "to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21 st century," which includes strengthening weak and failing states. However, as U.S. policy toward these states has grown in priority and cost—particularly since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001—some U.S. officials and other analysts have begun to question the effectiveness of the Administration's policies for dealing with these types of problem states. As the debate continues into the next presidential term, this is likely to continue to be a contentious area, with congressional involvement in U.S. policy toward weak and failing states flowing from its funding and oversight responsibilities. Currently, policy makers and observers are advocating competing visions for addressing state weakness, which could pose significant consequences for U.S. national security policy and U.S. preparedness for combating 21 st -century security threats. On one side of the spectrum are those who advocate a "Whole-of-Government" vision for strengthening weak states. Advocates of this approach perceive weak states to present multiple, interdependent challenges to political stability, military and security capabilities, and development and humanitarian needs. As a result, they recommend developing mechanisms and procedures for interagency planning that coordinate all aspects of U.S. policy toward weak states. The implications of enhancing U.S. government interagency processes could be substantial for the legislative and executive branches. Supporters have discussed the potential for significant reform of congressional funding and authorizing responsibilities, as well as a substantial organizational overhaul of several federal agencies. At the other extreme are those who are critical of U.S. nation-building activities; they fundamentally question the appropriateness of state weakness as a lens through which to identify national security threats. Instead, such analysts recommend developing strategies to combat specific threats, such as ungoverned territories conducive to criminal exploitation, international terrorism, transnational crime, and nuclear weapons proliferation, regardless of how strong a state's government is. In the case of conflict or post-conflict situations, some critics also discourage institutionalizing potentially costly U.S. stabilization and reconstruction capabilities. Some critics also claim that the concept of strengthening states inherently prescribes a Western model of state function that may not be appropriate in all situations. If U.S. national security policy priority on weak and failing states is not necessary or desirable, the existence and funding levels of several recently created programs and strategies to combat weak states threats may be called into question. U.S. policy toward weak and failing states currently hangs in an uneasy balance between these two perspectives. In recent years, this has resulted in a proliferation of new programs designed to address the challenges of strengthening weak and failing states. The Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) in the Department of State, stood up in July 2004, is mandated with leading and coordinating U.S. efforts for conflict prevention and response in failing states; in this capacity, S/CRS has sought to implement a whole-of-government approach for addressing conflict in failed states since at least 2006. At the same time, DOD has expanded its role in conflict prevention and stability operations—revising military doctrine to elevate these activities to primary missions, devoting greater resources to such activities, and establishing new institutions to train DOD personnel and facilitate DOD's involvement in stability operations, including "phase zero" or "shaping" operations that, prior to 2004, had not been the purview of DOD strategy or mission goals. U.S. weak states initiatives, however, remain limited by a lack of interagency cohesion and unclear resources across agencies to carry out programs to strengthen weak states and combat potential national security threats emerging from such states. Pointing to these limitations, some observers question whether U.S. commitment to strengthening weak states is in decline. In light of the current debate, possible oversight questions for Congress relating to U.S. policy toward weak and failing states include the following: Is there a need for an interagency strategy to coordinate agency responses to weak and failing states? When is it appropriate for the United States to prevent or respond to situations of state failure abroad? How effective are U.S. programs in preventing state failure? To what extent are U.S. government "early warning" predictors of state failure influencing policy planning? What do other countries do and how can international cooperation on weak and failing states be improved? What types of unintended consequences could U.S. policies to strengthen weak states have in the short- and long-term? This report is intended to serve as a primer on weak and failing states and related U.S. policy issues. The report first provides definitions of weak states and describes the links between weak states and U.S. national security and development challenges. Second, it surveys recent key U.S. programs and initiatives designed to address threats emanating from weak states and identifies remaining issues related to the new programs. Finally, it highlights potential legislative issues that Congress may be asked to consider. No universal definition for "weak state" or "failing state" exists. Some analysts describe state weakness as the erosion of state capacity—a condition characterized by gradations of a regime's ability to govern effectively, which, in its most extreme form, results in the complete collapse of state power and function. Most countries in the developing world fall along this spectrum, exhibiting at least some elements of weakness. Failing states, which are seen as including only a handful of countries in the world, exhibit more pronounced weaknesses than others. Among the universe of weak and failing states, there is no single pathway to failure. In some cases, states are characterized by gradual, yet persistent, institutional decay and political instability. In other cases, states rapidly tumble into failure, faltering under the weight of political instability, an acute natural disaster, or economic crisis. Based on quantitative development indicators, weak and failing states tend to be among the least-developed and most underperforming states in the world. Notable U.S. government and government-affiliated efforts to describe weak and failing states focus on four major, often overlapping, elements of state function. Factors stressed include (1) peace and stability, (2) effective governance, (3) territorial control and porous borders, and (4) economic sustainability. Peace and Stability: Failing states are often in conflict, at risk of conflict and instability, or newly emerging from conflict. Lacking physical security, other state functions are often compromised; frequently cited examples of such states today include Sudan and Iraq. Effective Governance: Countries can also be hampered by poor governance, corruption, and inadequate provisions of fundamental public services to its citizens. In some cases, as in North Korea or Zimbabwe, this may occur because leaders have limited interest, or political "will," to provide core state functions to all its citizens. A government's perceived unwillingness to provide adequate public services can incite destabilizing elements within a state. Territorial Control and Porous Borders: Weak and failing states may lack effective control of their territory, military, or law enforcement—providing space where instability can fester; such places may also be called "ungoverned spaces" or "safe havens." The Pakistan-Afghanistan border and the Sahel region of Northern Africa are common examples where such elements of state weakness exist. Economic Sustainability: Many weak states are also among the poorest countries in the world. Arguably as a consequence of other security and political deficiencies, weak and failing states often lack the conditions to achieve lasting economic development. Such countries include Bangladesh and many in Sub-Saharan Africa. Failed states have appeared as a matter of concern in U.S. National Security Strategy documents since 1998, though the term had long been the topic of significant academic debate and implicitly informed U.S. national security policy since at least the end of World War II. As the Cold War concluded in the early 1990s, analysts became aware of an emerging international security environment, in which weak and failing states became vehicles for transnational organized crime, nuclear proliferation pathways, and hot spots for civil conflict and humanitarian emergencies. The potential U.S. national security threats weak and failing states pose became further apparent with Al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attack on the United States, which Osama bin Laden masterminded from the safe haven that Afghanistan provided. The events of 9/11 prompted President George W. Bush to claim in the 2002 U.S. National Security Strategy that "weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states." In 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice further emphasized how weak and failing states pose "unparalleled" danger to the United States, serving as "global pathways" that facilitate the "movement of criminals and terrorists" and "proliferation of the world's most dangerous weapons." Many national security observers highlight such Administration language to indicate that U.S. interest in weak and failing states has become more substantial since 9/11 and is motivated largely by national security interests.