The warlords also pose a threat to the international system. For example, at some point in time both Somalia and Afghanistan have been the training grounds for Al-Qaeda troops. Due to its porous borders Afghanistan has become the main supplier of heroin to Europe. Therefore, most scholars agree that some level of state-hood governance must be achieved in order to solve the power vacuum problem from which warlordism stems. “European-style nation-states may not be viable in Somalia or Afghanistan. Neither country has a history of strong statehood. Some observers argue that only the need to repel a rapacious invasion from a broad can create the popular cohesion necessary for strong states to develop. Such an invasion is unlikely to threaten the whole territory of either country today, despite repeated smaller-scale foreign military incursions. Afghanistan in particular is sparsely populated outside a few large cities, with many ethnic divisions straddling an inhospitable geography of mountains and deserts; no state could reasonably hope to exert powerful authority everywhere in the country. Yet other forms of national-level governance that resemble statehood in important ways may be possible, even if their functions remain limited.”[3] The probably only way to impose such government-like structures is through prolonged and sustained international intervention in form of peace keeping operations. Whether the international system would be wishing to engage economically and otherwise in such a mission remains to be seen.…
