The next president of Afghanistan faces the twin perils of a galvanized Taliban and an international community fast losing patience. But if the Afghan state is to succeed, patience will be a key factor. Unlike Iraq, where the civilizational foundation for a stable republic existed before the first U.S. boot touched ground, Afghanistan is nation building in its purest form. Security is but one part of a campaign that touches on agriculture, economic affairs, political corruption, civil infrastructure, and social policy. Most daunting, the answer to the question of which issue must first be tackled is: all of them.
And the pressure has never been greater. In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, a majority of Americans have given up on our efforts in Afghanistan. Fifty-one percent of respondents are opposed to the war, with a striking forty-one percent strongly opposed. Support for the Afghanistan surge is an anemic twenty-four percent. Similar polls conducted in Britain, Germany, and Canada are even less encouraging.
Part of it is simply mission fatigue. Eight years on, the operation
often appears moribund with little in the way of progress. Afghanistan
has a forty percent unemployment rate and no economy to speak of. In
opium poppy, many farmers have found salvation--a high-yield,
high-profit crop. The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime peg Afghanistan's
share of the global opium market at a staggering ninety percent, making
opium to Afghanistan what oil is to Saudi Arabia. Such an agricultural
success story is unlikely to bolster public opinion.
The policy of both ISAF and the Afghan government is the eradication of
poppy fields (which would in turn eradicate one-third of the country's
GDP). The United States, meanwhile, now bribes farmers to plant other
crops. Short term thinking in a long-term commitment, it has the effect
of wasting financial resources better used elsewhere, and ensnaring
Afghans in a permanent farming-subsidy scheme. It takes little
imagination to suppose what will happen the first time the U.S. misses
a payment.
A far more sensible alternative exists. The International Council on
Security and Development has proposed a Poppy for Medicine project,
similar to a plan successfully implemented in Turkey in the 1960's. The
goal would be to create local medicine factories to manufacture
morphine from locally grown poppy, which would in turn be purchased by
the central Afghan government and sold on the international market.
A success would fill the state's coffers, and go far in alleviating
political corruption. It would also eliminate a lucrative profit center
for the Taliban. But whatever course the next president of Afghanistan
chooses, it is imperative that his nation is removed from the global
illicit drug trade.
The issue of security is dispiriting when compared with the tremendous
strides made by 2004. In an effort to regain lost ground, President
Obama recently committed 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, with
more to be deployed as our campaign in Iraq draws to a close. This
"doubling down" is vital, but will only succeed with a renewed
international commitment, and a serious conversation with the American
public on what's at stake, and what victory will entail.
To be sure, bullets alone will not win the conflict. If that were the
case, Afghanistan would already be the Switzerland of the East. The
resurgence of the Taliban is in large measure a result of unfulfilled
infrastructure commitments by the United States and ISAF. The failure
to complete such projects as the Ring Road, village water wells, and
schools was interpreted as a half-hearted loyalty. The certainty of a
patient Taliban waiting in the wings versus the perceived fickle
American presence weighs heavily on Afghan villagers.
It's also clear that the U.S. erred in turning over combat operations
to NATO, which had reverted to a defensive footing and hesitated to
eradicate Taliban enclaves. This gave the insurgency time to regroup
and rebuild, and mount sophisticated attacks with aid from Pakistani
and Iranian extremists.
While there is some debate as to the merits of a surge strategy in
Afghanistan, more soldiers are certainly needed to provide security for
the civil affairs mission. A young, educated, healthy populace will
invariably result in a stronger economy, which will, in turn,
facilitate modernization efforts several centuries overdue.
Progress in Afghanistan is measured in inches, though there are miles
yet to travel. Some of the country's greatest successes are small in
scale, but improve the quality of life for Afghan villagers. They also
elevate the social standing of women, who only a decade ago were
considered chattel and barred from schools and the public square on
penalty of death.
One such undertaking is the Women's Poultry Project, a social and
agricultural program designed to teach Afghan women to raise and care
for chickens. In addition to providing food for their families, the
chickens are also a source of profit on the open market. Twelve hundred
families have benefitted from the program, with similar programs now in
place for sheep and other livestock.
Such modest projects make a real impact on the Afghan people, but few
tremors in the outside world. While they rarely rate the five o'clock
news, they are critical in building a sustainable society. Indeed,
Afghanistan seldom lends itself to easy coverage or major news events.
Militarily, it is a war fought largely by special operations forces,
whose missions are by default classified. (It is not uncommon for such
soldiers there to begin conversations with the words, "I am not here.")
In 2001, then-President Bush noted that the public should expect
"dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in
success." Eight years into the occupation, the war now leans decisively
toward the latter, even more so under the command of General Stanley
McChrystal, a Special Forces officer of thirty years. An inevitable
consequence of this is a steady, up-ticking counter of U.S. and ISAF
fatalities with little context for the flag-draped coffins.
I recall a conversation I once had with a senior noncommissioned
officer only weeks into the invasion of Iraq. He said that there would
never be another Normandy or Ia Drang or Iwo Jima, but rather soldiers
killed in ones and twos, day after day. The United States military
would never suffer a landed blow, he said, but a steady, patient
squeeze. Until the successful surge of 2007, that's exactly what
happened in Iraq, and public opinion never recovered. Instead of
operations secret in success, it now seems that in Iraq we are
witnessing an entire war secret in success.
Americans will accept casualties so long as they are meaningful. The
next president of Afghanistan will need to demonstrate meaningful
political successes to an already skeptical world. An Afghanistan that
can stand on its own is years away. President Obama needs to know that
it is a nation worth building. The next president of Afghanistan needs
to show that it can be built.
D.B. Grady is a freelance writer and novelist. He served as a paratrooper with the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2007. He can be found at http://www.dbgrady.com.







Nicely-written article, full of platitudes. But it glosses over the challenges in Afghanistan, and it fails to explain why the U.S. needs to accomplish the author's stated goals.
One example:
"A young, educated, healthy populace will invariably result in a stronger economy, which will, in turn, facilitate modernization efforts several centuries overdue."
Rory Stewart estimated last month that it will take 30 years to modernize Afghanistan's infrastructure to the level of Pakistan's. Let's assume he's off by a factor of three. The U.S. will still need to commit to a decade of state-building -- bringing our commitment in Afghanistan to at least 18 years, for those keeping score at home -- to create a modicum of infrastructure in Afghanistan. It will cost, presumably, hundreds of billions of dollars, and hundreds or thousands of American lives.
Why? Just to deny Al-Qaeda the "safe havens" that pose such a supposed threat to the U.S.? Is there a moral imperative to build a functioning Afghan state? Does it serve some greater geopolitical interest?
I'm not saying there is no reason to pursue these goals in Afghanistan. I'm open to compelling arguments. But this piece reads like an ISAF press release; it doesn't engage with any of the difficult questions the U.S. needs to answer before setting an Afghan strategy.
Kill Osama bin Laden and go home.