CRITICAL EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAILED STATES AND TERRORISM

The notion popularized by policy makers in the United States of America that failed states are havens for terrorists to plan, train and stage attacks, under closer scrutiny does not seem to be supported by acceptable data. Though Scholars have written extensively on the link between “failed”, “failing” “weak” states and terrorism, this relationship is actually more complex. Besides the concept of “weak”, “a failed”and“failing’ state is itself contentious and ignores the context of the perceived weaknesses of specific states. Furthermore, scholars such as Traub (2011) have also raised the problem of the nomenclature of failed states. For him, the expression failed states implies a prior state of success, whereas some of these states have not been strong from the beginning, especially states emerging from colonial rule, which created them. In addition, questions have been raised as whether failed, failing or weak states have the necessary infrastructure for terrorists to operate efficiently. In any case, some of the famous terrorists such as the 9/11 hijackers, or Osama Bin Laden perfected their acts in states not regarded as failed, failing or weak, notwithstanding the fact that “ungoverned”, “under governed” territories in Pakistan and Afghanistan have provided room for terrorists to recruit, train and hide.