Metrics for Afghanistan

Well, we finally have our metrics for winning the war Afghanistan.  All 46 of them.  Or, more accurately, 46+, since there an undefined number of classified metrics as well.  Call it 50 in round numbers.

Some of them are ridiculously vague.  For example, “Status of relations between Afghanistan and its other neighbors,” whatever that means.  Some are at least theoretically measurable: “Volume and value of narcotics.”  Some have already been missed: “Afghan Government’s… ability to hold credible elections in 2009 and 2010.”  Some are darkly humorous: “Development of an enduring, strategic partnership between the U.S. and Pakistan.”

I don’t know what to think about this.  I just don’t know.  It’s not like I’m against the idea of setting out specific goals and trying to measure how well we’re achieving them.  On the other hand, if you wanted to resurrect the ghost of Robert McNamara and convince everyone that Afghanistan is Vietnam 2.0, you could hardly do a better job than this list.  I don’t doubt for a second that McNamara had something exactly like it in 1965 when he was meeting with LBJ and the Joint Chiefs in the Oval Office.

Still, if I had to pick out the one thing that bothers me most about this plan, it’s how implicitly utopian it is.  We’re not just trying to kill some terrorists here, we’re apparently trying to turn both Pakistan and Afghanistan into thriving, peaceful, incorruptible, Westernized democracies.  But that’s a hundred-year project, and it’s not something we’ve ever demonstrated much skill at.  So what, exactly, makes us think we’re going to be good at it this time around?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate