The Brookings Institution and the Center for Global Development released their Index of State Weakness in the Developing World on Tuesday. Somewhat surprisingly, Afghanistan gains the honor of being the second weakest state of the developing world. Of the five categories used to generate the index: economic, political, security, social welfare, and GNI per capita, Afghanistan ranks rock bottom in both security and social welfare.

So where public sentiment calls for at the very least an end to the troop surge as well as a gradual withdrawal of troops in Iraq, let’s not forget that these same resources are in dire need elsewhere. Considering our president’s previous obliviousness to funding Afghan Aid and the fact that the Afghan government controls only 30 percent of the country, there are obvious ways in which an increase in aid and troop support can do a lot of good.

This is not to say that we could not use a helping hand. The US accounts for half of the aid budget, and three quarters of the military contribution. So while we should press for greater international cooperation, to state the obvious this is still a situation created largely by us. The US led airstrikes leading to the destruction of Afghan infrastructure should logically be rebuilt with US hands.

Nor will this situation be easy. Given the rough geographical constraints of the country and lack of regional control, getting aid in and out of the country is a quite difficult task. But again, this is where shifting the 6:1 ratio of troops in Iraq to troops in Afghanistan to a more equitable fraction could yield significant results.

The report states that the most pressing issue affecting U.S. policy is as follows:

“First, poverty alleviation should be given higher priority in U.S. foreign policy. The Index reveals a strong relationship between low income and state weakness: On balance, poorer countries tend to be weaker ones. Poverty fuels and perpetuates civil conflict, which swiftly and dramatically reduces state capacity.”

So let us note that the DRC, Sudan, and CAR, all countries with immense civil conflicts, lie in the top 10 of this index. This only makes you wonder what we truly could have done to help quench the regional instability in these nations had we not devoted our efforts all out in Iraq (no fly zone? increased aid? African Union funding? donation of helicopters?).

And on a final note, the place where we have devoted immense resource: Iraq, ranks as the 4th weakest state in the entire world. So given their immense state weakness, make no mistake about it, a withdrawal of troops WILL lead to increased regional instability, and it will most likely not be pretty. I’m not arguing for a hundred year occupation ala McCain, but leaving a region already strife with disorder in spite of our massive presence will worsen this truly heart wrenching crisis and yield a situation, however bad things are now, that we will feel powerless to stop.