Measuring Success in Afghanistan

How do we know if the U.S. and NATO are "winning" the war in Afghanistan? Of course, this question assumes that the war as it is being conducted is actually winnable on its terms, an assumption that -- recent developments included -- is highly questionable in and of itself. But, assuming for a moment that it is, are there measures by which a resounding "yes" or "no" answer becomes available?

Generally, the number of dead Taliban or downed poppy fields are benchmarks, and very poor ones at that because they fail to take into account the wider actualities that can make or break the viability of peace in the country. Fotini Christia, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) political scientist who has spent time on the ground in Afghanistan, has a five-sided rubric to measure success in Afghanistan that she, and I, believe can work better.

1. The number of government officials who serve a district and live in that district: One of the main reasons the Afghan government isn't working is because its officials work from outside their districts because they fear for their lives within them. As the shift from defeating insurgents to building infrastructure continues, they are likely to migrate back and start contributing in a more direct and meaningful ways.

2. Decreasing transportation costs of goods: Yes, it can literally cost an arm and a leg to carry basic needs such as food and water in and out of a region, city or village. That's why declines in transportation costs are a reasonable indicator of the risks and dangers of doing so, meaning that a reduction in costs points to a reduction in risks and dangers.

3. Increasing market activity: No, we do not mean stock markets, but the kind where you can buy fruits, vegetables, meats, grains and other household goods now often only available on the black market or self-production. An increase in legal market activities, marked by the opening of new stores for example, can be an clear sign that producer and consumer confidence has risen correlated with a decrease in armed conflict.

4. Decrease in reports of improvised explosive devices (IEDs): Forget WMDs, it's IEDs that are causing the most trouble in the everyday lives of Afghans, and so a decrease in their reports is as close to a certain indicator of decrease in armed conflict as there is for now.

5. Increase in school attendance: If only truancy were the cause. Schools have been a target for both recruitment and attacks, and are -- after basic necessities being met -- the next prerequisite for the transition from war to peace to be officially underway.

By these measures, at least, success is less in the eyes of the beholder than it is by the prevailing measurements. Stay tuned to Change.org's War and Peace blog next week for an exclusive interview with the UN's Counter-Terrorism chief for al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Photo credit: The U.S. Army