competing powers seeking to undermine U.S. inter-
ests. The U.S. Government (USG) and military now
face far more disparate and nuanced sets of interlinked
challenges, which are not easily resolved through tra-
ditional military hard power or diplomacy. U.S. and
NATO efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya demon-
strate predominance and difficulties of facing uncon-
ventional enemies with conventional military forces.
The Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledged this
shift with issuance of DOD Directive (DODD) 3000.5
in 2005, and changed policy to make stability, security,
transition, and reconstruction (SSTR) missions equal
in importance to combat operations. DOD policy now
requires development of capabilities to effectively
support USG missions across full spectrum of conflict
and operations which support civilian security, pro-
vide services, restore infrastructure, and provide hu-
manitarian relief (DOD 2009). U.S. policymakers and
thought leaders are undergoing a paradigm shift from
a “traditional” national security framework toward
one based on human security and now increasingly
includes energy, natural resource, and environmental
components (Rumphrey 2008; DOD 2008). Policy and
doctrine are starting to catch up with realities faced
daily by U.S. regional combatant commands and in-
theater warfighters. These new strategic approaches
require interpretations because the range of global
missions relating to human security are vast, stretch-
ing the capacity and resources of the United States, its
allies, and the international community.
Fragility Concept and Its Emergence
Over the last decade, the concept of fragility has
emerged within the academic, international, and U.S.
policymaker communities as a practical application of