Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

Home | Contact Us | Media Resources

Sunday September 20, 2009

Afghanistan: Measuring Progress Toward Peace

Afghanistan, NATO, U.S. Military, Development, Democracy Promotion Michael E. O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy The Washington Times

Save Print E-mail Share Delicious Digg Diigo Facebook Google LinkedIn Live Newsvine StumbleUpon Yahoo

SEPTEMBER 01, 2009

Afghanistan's important Aug. 20 vote is over. Whatever the outcome, a poll by the International Republican Institute, completed just before the vote, shows a fresh burst of hopefulness among Afghans, with optimism about the future back to the 60 percent level for the first time in years and renewed faith in the United States as well as NATO. However, this is likely the last time we will have the benefits of a fresh start; our popularity, as well as the Afghan government's, has been declining at most points in the past few years, and the insurgency is gaining a greater foothold. We must make maximum use of this opportunity.
An Afghan policeman keeps watch during the presidential election in Kabul.

View Larger

Reuters/Lucy Nicholson


What's Right With Afghanistan

Michael E. O'Hanlon, The Wall Street Journal, September 02, 2009 RESEARCH AND COMMENTARY

A Tighter Command Is Needed in Afghanistan

Michael E. O'Hanlon, The Washington Times, April 10, 2009 PAST EVENT

Prospects for Afghanistan's Future: Assessing the Outcome of the Afghan Presidential Election
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:00 PM to 4:30 PM Washington, DC More Related Content

President Obama's new strategy is a step in the right direction but how, and how soon, will we know if it is working? With declining support for the war among Americans, this is not only a fair question but an important one. The president owes Congress a report in September on metrics for gauging progress in Afghanistan. There is little doubt that Congress will provide Mr. Obama the money he needs for the nation's wars now, but these indicators could be crucial next year as midterm elections approach and as the buildup of U.S. forces in Afghanistan raises expectations about the progress we should be able to see there. Using metrics in war is perilous business. Assessing progress in war especially this kind of counterinsurgency mission and state-building enterprise is more art than science. But while it may be art, it must not be fiction. Any theory about the war's trajectory must be consistent with the facts. In this regard, metrics can help. Based on our experiences in and out of government, we would offer several guidelines on how to interpret quantitative data from the Afghanistan conflict that may be useful in the coming months: Don't equate Afghanistan with Iraq. While the principles of counterinsurgency for the two wars are similar, the proper use of metrics in these places is very, very different. In Iraq, by 2005-06, violence against civilians was ripping the country apart, making it the No. 1 key indicator for future progress. Whatever else the surge accomplished, it had to bring down those fatalities as well as ethnic cleansing and displacement rates. In Afghanistan, despite the deterioration in security, violence against civilians remains far, far less than it was in the dog days of Iraq's civil war.

In Afghanistan, focus on state building. A related point is that metrics showing the growing capacity of the Afghan state are probably the most important in that country's war. Not only the growth in size of the army and police, but their quality, as well as the functioning of legal systems and the efficiency of the bureaucracy in running schools and health clinics and utilities, are of paramount importance. More corrupt officials should be fired, too.

Beware the wrong metrics. Unfortunately, gauging the capacity of a government to deliver key services to its population is hard. It is easy to find the wrong metrics. In Iraq in 2004-06, for example, we had a robust training program for Iraqi security forces and yet, in retrospect, though the program was well-run, scholar Steve Biddle turned out to be right in arguing that we were effectively preparing many of those forces for civil war rather than counterinsurgency. Because their leadership was so poor and their political dependability so questionable, they inflamed rather than quelled the civil war. Yet our system of metrics at the time had shown continual progress.

Don't measure only what is easily measurable. There can be a tendency to trust "hard data" that seems precise and firm, such as the number of schools opened or miles of road built or megawatts of electricity sent over the official grid, and to downplay metrics for which information is less easily obtained, such as crime rates and unemployment rates and, as noted above, the political reliability of key leaders of the army, police and courts. Better to present questionable data and label it as such than to leave it out of a database because it is not polished.

Measure the enemy as well as yourself. How many incidents is it initiating? In how many districts is it active? Are they all Pashtun areas, or is the insurgency spreading beyond Pashtunistan?

Keep an eye on Pakistan. Is it succumbing to violence or tackling its own Frankenstein's monster? Is violence spreading beyond the Pashtun belt here, too? As is often the case, the data are surely weak, but as best we can tell, are the jihadist safe havens growing or contracting? And what do Pakistanis think about us? Are we their foe or friend?

Remember that some indicators lag and some lead. As Mr. Shapiro emphasizes, even in a successful campaign, some trends will take more time to improve than others. Troop fatality rates

may stay tragically high even as progress begins to develop momentum on the battlefield, for example, if our troops gain better intelligence and are able to initiate more contact with the enemy. On the other side of things, economic activity may not improve rapidly until a year or two after security improves, as would-be investors remain cautious about committing their money until they're sure progress is sustainable.

Pay attention to polling. We may think of surveys as a prevalent feature of modern society, but as our colleague Carol Graham and others have shown, they can reveal a great deal at the national and the local levels - about what a population is thinking. Because the population is the "center of gravity" in this type of war, that makes polling data crucial. We also can use surveys as a diagnostic tool to determine which elements of our overall strategy are succeeding and which are not.

If we were to offer one message now, in late summer 2009, based on the above principles, it would be this: Be patient. This is not a call for indefinite suspension of disbelief. After eight years, the American and Afghan peoples are entitled to some straight talk about the war and some reasonable expectation of nearterm progress. But the inputs to the new strategy for Afghanistan are only now reaching the battlefield (and indeed, a debate about sending more troops may occur soon as well). Given the nature of the military operations at hand and the pace at which Afghan security forces and civilian institutions can be built, it will take much or all of 2010 to know if these added resources are translating into a turnaround on the battlefield. The Afghan people probably are patient enough, after 30 years of war, to wait this long for clear results. Given the quality of our new strategy and new leadership for Afghanistan policy, despite the costs and the pain, Congress and American people should be as well.


Programs Experts Events Brookings Institution Press Executive Education About Brookings

Advanced Search | Tips

My Portfolio
My New Content

My Portfolio
Save your settings: 1. 2. Create a Brookings Account If you already have an account, please login
Edit My Topics

No Saved Topics
Edit My Programs

No Saved Programs
Edit My Experts

No Saved Experts
Edit Saved Content

No Saved Pages

My New Content
View suggested content based on items you have saved to your Portfolio. Log in or register now

Related Topics

Global Economics International Organizations Global Governance Defense Europe

View All Topics

Topics All Brookings topics relate to one or more spheres: U.S., World or Economy. Affirmative Action Afghanistan Africa Agency for International Development Agent-based Models Aging

Airline Industry Alternative Minimum Tax Antidumping Antitrust Arab-Israeli Relations Arms Control Asia Atlanta Australia and New Zealand Auto Industry Balkans Banking Brazil BRICs Broadband Policy Budget Deficit Bureaucracy Business California Campaign Finance Canada Caucasus Central America Central Asia Central Intelligence Agency

Charter Schools Chemical Weapons Chicago Children & Families China China's 17th Party Congress China's Economy Cities Civil Liberties Civil Service Civil Society Civil War Climate and Energy Economics Climate Change Colombia Community Development Competitiveness Concentrated Poverty Congressional Oversight Congressional Redistricting Corporate Governance Corporate Social Responsibility Corporate Taxes Corporations Corruption

Cost of Living Courts Crime Cuba Darfur Defense Defense Budget Defense Strategy Democracy Promotion Demographics Developing Countries Development Diplomacy Displacement in Iraq Earned Income Tax Credit Eastern Europe Economic Development Economic Mobility Education E-Government Egypt Elections Emerging Markets Energy Security Environment

Environmental Justice Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Regulation Estate Tax Ethnicity Europe European Union Exchange Rates Executive Branch Faith-based Initiatives Federal Budget Federal Communications Commission Federal Election Commission Federal Reserve System Federal Trade Commission Federalism Financial Institutions Financial Markets Financial Services First Suburbs Fiscal Policy Florida Force and Legitimacy Foreign Aid Foreign Assistance Reform

Foreign Debt Foreign Direct Investment Foreign Policy France G-20 Summit G8 Summit Gaza Crisis Georgia Global Economics Global Environment Global Finance Global Financial Crisis Global Food Crisis Global Governance Global Health Global Poverty Global Warming Globalization Governance Great Lakes Guantnamo Happiness Head Start Health Care Health IT

Highways Home Schools Homeland Security Hong Kong Housing Human Capital Human Rights Immigration Income Distribution India India's Economy Indonesia Inequality Inflation Information Technology Infrastructure Innovation Intellectual Property Intelligence Intergenerational Equity Intermountain West Internal Displacement International Education International Finance International Monetary Fund

International Organizations International Relations Internet Policy Iran Iraq Islamic World Israel Italy Japan Jordan Judges Justice and Law K-12 Education Kashmir Labor Labor Markets Latin America Lebanon Legal Architecture for the War on Terror Macroeconomics Marriage and Family Formation Media & Journalism Medicaid Medicare Metropolitan Recovery and Spending Priorities

Mexico Michigan Middle East Migration Military Technology Missile Defense Missouri Monetary Policy Mortgage Market Multilateral Development Banks Myanmar National Security National Security Council NATO Natural Disasters New Orleans New York State No Child Left Behind Non-profits North Korea Northeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Office of Management and Budget Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Pakistan

Pandemic Disease Peace Corps Peacekeeping Pennsylvania Pensions Persian Gulf Political Campaigns Political Conventions Politics Polling and Public Opinion President Obama's Budget: Background Reading Presidential Appointments Private Military Contractors Productivity Proliferation Public Health Quality Places Quality-of-Life Issues Race Real Estate Regions and States Regulation Religion Retirement Revolution in Military Affairs

Russia Sanctions Saudi Arabia Saving School Choice School Privatization School Vouchers Seattle Secretary of State Clinton's Trip to Asia Securities and Exchange Commission Social Issues Social Norms Social Security Social Security Administration South America South Asia South Korea Southeast Asia Sprawl Subjective Well-being Sudan Summit of the Americas Sustainable Development Syria Taiwan

Tax Cuts Tax Reform Taxes Teachers Technology Technology and Development Telecommunications Terrorism The Presidency The Presidential Transition The White House Trade Trade Disputes Traffic Transatlantic Relations Transnational Security Threats Transportation Troubled Asset Relief Program Turkey U.S. Census U.S. Congress U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of State U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Treasury U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs U.S. Economic Growth U.S. Economic Stimulus U.S. Economy U.S. Financial Market Regulation U.S. Higher Education U.S. Judiciary U.S. Military U.S. Politics U.S. Poverty U.S. Supreme Court Ukraine Unemployment United Kingdom United Nations

Urban and Inner-city Schools Venezuela Volunteering Voter Turnout Wages Walkable Urbanism Washington DC Weapons Weapons in Space Weapons of Mass Destruction Welfare Western Europe Working Poor World Bank World Trade Organization Return to previous page http://www.brookings.edu/topiclist.aspx