non-traditional threat areas prior to instability or con-
flict. For example, awareness of countries which are
becoming increasingly fragile could aid in the devel-
opment of theater security cooperation (TSC) plans
and prioritization of engagement activities. Fragility-
based early warning and scenario planning tools could
be used to prepare for contingency planning, assess
capability gaps, program for, and partner with other
USG agencies to address key shortfalls (e.g., proac-
tively prepare integrated responses to events such as
the “Arab Spring” of 2011).
Comparison of Fragility and Instability
Conflict and instability are often cited as a symp-
tom or downstream consequence of state fragility.
For instance, Carment et al. and AEPI found robust
statistical relationships between fragility, instability,
and conflict (2008; 2010). While occurrence of armed
conflict is often the primary focus within academic
and defense practitioner communities, instability is
generally focused on occurrence of “severe politi-
cal conflicts and regime crises” at the country level
(Marshall 2009). The PITF proposed a strategic work-
ing definition where intrastate political instability is
the occurrence of revolutionary wars, ethnic wars,
adverse regime changes, genocides, and politicides
(Bates et al. 2003). Current instability research efforts
focus on conflict risk and the study of causal linkages.
Although instability risk approaches allow nation-
al security practitioners to move further back on the
conflict spectrum and provide six to 24-month early
warning, these models do not provide sufficient warn-
ing and depth of contextual information to understand
the breakdown of state governance or the preced-
ing relationship between a nation’s government and