Big talk happened this week. The US said that they see Iran as an important player in Afghanistan.  Iran said it would take part in the regional conference on Afghanistan and the US pledged to bring more troops to Afghanistan to root our terrorists camps.

The slow dance of Iranian and the US negotiations is underway.  Of course, it has a long way to go with many potential stumbling blocks.  One of which is the amount of ugly noise we will have to stomach from both the American and Iranian right.  At home, the right say talking to Iran is naive and will never work. In Iran, the right crows about trust and demands measurable progress.

Both criticisms are based in valid points of view.  The only guarantee the US can expect is that Iran will act in its own interests. But it is almost impossible to figure how how they see their interests. The outcome of any conversation is far from set.

On the Iranian side, the US has a long history of working against Iran. Both countries are right to demand clear metrics of progress, as this is best way  to build trust in any wary partnership.

The problem is that neither the US right or the Iranian right offer these criticisms to be constructive. They see problems but don’t offer any solutions.  They say we can’t work together but don’t offer ideas for how we can move forward in Afghanistan or improve US – Iranian relations.

All ideas should be considered but loud mouth criticism from the easy chair offer nothing but a bit more noise.

The  tragedy is that these defeatist tomes contain important points but readers have to wade through miles of bile to extract them.  The US needs a vigorous internal opposition and we need to understand the full spectrum of obstacles in Iran.

But right now, we just get anger and hopelessness. Hopefully, both rights can figure out how work towards thier countries future.

No military solution will work in Afghanistan without economic development to reinforce the security. The country has been so poor for so long that rebuilding the economy may be more difficult than securing the peace.

There is a growing movement to focus on the economy first. We should surge our investment in the road, water, waste and electrical systems.  Why not put people to work and pay them each day so they have cash to spend in the local markets?

The military mission would shift to from hunting killers in the mountains to protecting the economic activity.  This would be safer for our soldiers, less costly for the tax payer and would fundamentally shift the situation on the ground for the people of Afghanistan.

Joe Biden said in Brussels on March 11, 2009 : “Roughly 70 percent [of Taliban] are involved because of the money, because they are getting paid.” Biden said this 70 percent of Taliban may be persuaded to lay down arms.

The Taliban pays its soldiers $8 a day.  If we double that, people will work with us.  If we simultaneously start buying the poppy plants from the farmers, as we did successfully in Turkey and India, the Taliban will not have any money to pay their fighters.  By fall, Afghanistan could be full of workers and a blossoming local economy.

Americans back home could then use organizations like Kiva.org to help Afghans create their own businesses, and the US would be deep in the business of nation building instead of fighting a war.

If we are principled enough to follow FDR’s call for self determination, this approach could damage the terrorists much more than any drone attack ever will.  Reviving Afghanistan and getting our troops home might just be the stroke capitalism needs to save itself.

The Weekly Standard just published a strong story about Afghanistan. The three authors, Max Boot, Frederick W. Kagan & Kimberly Kagan, spent 8 days traveling the country and feel hopeful that the war can conclude successfully.  They don’t define what success is, but my assumption reading the article was that we will succeed when we can pull our troops out and  leave behind a stable Afghan government that provides its own security.

The positive focus is a welcome contrast from the doom and gloom in most US reporting.  The article is also refreshingly free of partisan  bickering and is properly focused on our efforts to secure the country. Far too many articles written about Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan actually focus on local US politics. We are all in this together and we need to find ways to solve these problems – regardless of political stripe.

Well done, Weekly Standard. We need more reporting on what is actually happening on the ground.  And the three authors offer a wealth of details about many aspects of our effort. The multiple voices  also mean that the article suffers from a lack of overall direction as separate sections are loosely stitched together, but the article is well worth reading.

The authors are not free of politics but they make a few excellent points that could really enlighten our national debate:

• The term Taliban is all but meaningless. There are so many factions with layered, shifting allegiances that it is ridiculous to speak of them as a single, cohesive resistance.
  
• Extra troops could secure and hold more areas of the country. But we do will not have enough troops to secure the entire country. The Afghan forces are performing well but there is not nearly enough of them.
  
• The NATO structure needs overhaul as short assignments, too many players with different missions are leading to inefficiency and waste

I do have some questions for the authors.

There is no money, political will or plans to train enough Afghan forces to secure the country.  How can we succeed without finding a way to dramatically increase the size and capabilities of the local forces?

The authors rightfully point out that increased US troop strength could push some of the insurgent further west, close to Iran.  The authors says this is a problem because we don’t have troops there and won’t anytime soon.

Why do we need troops near Iran?

Iran has long been involved in that area of Afghanistan and shares language, custom and history with the Tajiks Western Afghanistan (25% of Afghanistan is Tajik). Iran helped us immensely during the 2001 war.  Iran doesn’t want to see radical Pashtuns in power and they want to curb the flow of drugs. They would be glad to secure this area; why don’t we work with them?

They are naturally allies here.  Why would we send in more Americans to fight in that god-forsaken terrain when it will antagonize a country that would love to do that fighting for us?

Economic development is crucial to a successive conclusion of the war. Security has to come first, but economic development needs to follow hard on its heels. A working economy will be the best way to maintain stability and the lack of one will quickly erode all our hard fought gains.

We need to start thinking about how to rebuild the country. Solving this may prove as difficult as creating security and we need to get it moving now.

Perhaps the American people can help.  We are sick of letting our soldiers do all the work. Poverty is caused  by a lack of money and there are new ways for those with resource to connect with those you don’t. If there are ways that we can help foster economic activity that will solidify the Afghanistan and bring our people home – count me in.

Let us all pick up on what this article started and continue to imagine how the US can succeed in Afghanistan, what peace will look like and how it will work.