Monopoly of Force

If a state is defined by the borders in which it exerts a monopoly of force, then what type of category does a country such as Afghanistan occupy? They have the popular leader as described by Weber, they have an elected assembly (perversely one which guarantees women members, something the US Congress does not do), they have a nation army and policing force, but they hardly have a monopoly of force even within their own capital. The United Nations and the Allied Coalition forces hold that title in the capitol and nearby regions, while warlords and guerrilla Taliban and al Quaeda fighters control the outlying regions. According to Weber, Afghanistan is merely lines on a map, a nation that exists in paper and at the pleasure of the occupiers, but not according to the sovereignty of Hamid Kharzi. 's
Is the definition of monopoly of force only extend to an actual occupying force or does it also depend on military influence and what one country can "bully" another into doing, a projection of a states monolpoly of power? If the later is true, then it would be nations of hegemons rather than sovereign states, and maps would need to be drawn rather differently. In such a redrawing, what would allied countries be shown as, one large amorphus blob, and who would be deemed to control it? Does the world really depend on the whims of a few coutries who can exert dominance over the rest?
I think not. Politically, empires may depend on coercion of other nations, but realities dictate who puts troops where. The United States could conceivably give into its Andrew Jackson urges and invade Canada, but it's not going to. States exist beyond merely monopoly of force in a given area, but also by tacit agreement with surrounding powers, a quid pro quo arrangement.