Now that President Obama has pledged to refocus attention on U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the New York Times reports that "the Obama administration is struggling to come up with a long-promised plan to measure whether the war is being won." Does it even make sense to talk about "winning" when it comes to this conflict? And if so, what will "winning" look like? According to the NYT article, the National Security Council is working on a list of "broad objectives for metrics to guide the administrations policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan." Besides defeating insurgents and capturing terrorists, success involves "eliminating corruption, promoting a working democracy, and providing effective aid" -- as well as building a self-sufficient army.All this follows on President Obama's promise, in March, that his administration would "set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable." But is pressing forward with this part of the Bush agenda really the right way to go? In the next Commonweal, Andrew Bacevich asks whether the U.S. ought to be dedicating so much of our energy and resources to pursuing the "war" in Afghanistan. The issue date is August 14, but you can read the article -- "The War We Can't Win: Afghanistan and the Limits of American Power" -- online now. Bacevich wonders:

What is it about Afghanistan, possessing next to nothing that the United States requires, that justifies such lavish attention? In Washington, this question goes not only unanswered but unasked. Among Democrats and Republicans alike, with few exceptions, Afghanistans importance is simply assumedmuch the way fifty years ago otherwise intelligent people simply assumed that the United States had a vital interest in ensuring the survival of South Vietnam. As then, so today, the assumption does not stand up to even casual scrutiny.

Read the whole thing. (And watch for another perspective on Afghanistan, from aid worker Joel Hafvenstein, in the same issue.)