eternal teetering

the washington post quoted a new report which says that iraq may be "on the verge of being a failed state."¹ i wonder what characteristics of a failed state the current iraq doesn't have? wiki gives several different definitions of the term "failed state", but the basic (somewhat overlapping) elements seem to be when a state:

(1) lacks a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders.

(2) does not have effective control over all of its territory.

(3) is unable to uniformly enforce its laws within its borders.

(4) is unable to insure security or foster development.

i think it's pretty clear that iraq currently meets every one of those elements. indeed, iraq is listed as an example of a failed state on the wiki page.

i guess it's easier to call iraq "on the verge" of something than just saying it is that something. plenty of people have declared iraq to be "on the verge of collapse", but the collapse never quite happens. and so iraq never quite arrives at any state. it never fails or collapses. it just teeters there on the edge.

---------------------
1- the full report cited by the wapo is here (pdf). oddly the line quoted by the newspaper is in the introduction, not the conclusion. the study itself doesn't make any attempt to determine whether iraq is a failed state or not.