Assessing Afghanistan: NATO's 63 new metrics

Reuters reports yesterday that NATO has drawn up a "standardized system" of 63 metrics it will use to track progress in Afghanistan. U.S. Army Gen. John Craddock said that "I would submit to you that, to date, most of the assessments of progress have been against anecdotal information," or measured in terms of outputs such as schools built or roads paved. "All good things," he notes, "But the question in my mind is: What's the effect it's produced?" Were the roads blocked? Were the classrooms empty?

I find it more than a little bit troubling that NATO is only getting to this discussion six years in to the intervention. This sort of thinking should have been integrated from day one. In their defense, they probably had metrics, and are now revisiting them to make them meaningful.

It is, of course, a devilishly complicated undertaking. Which metrics to choose? How to weight one against another? And how to gather reliable data from the multitude of unverified sources that include donor countries, the UN, GOA, NGOs? Everyone is keeping score, but based on a different set of rules. Just thinking about it makes my head spin. I would love to see the 63 metrics NATO settled on, and hear how it plans to measure them (if anyone has insights on this, drop a line or a comment...)

NATO revamps measures of Afghan progress, by Andrew Gray (Reuters) 5 December 2007: WASHINGTON -- NATO has developed a standardized system for tracking progress in Afghanistan because the war so far has been judged largely using anecdotal evidence, the alliance's top commander said on Tuesday.

             

Comments

[Mr. John Meharg]

Assessing Afghanistan: NATO’s 63 new metrics

I read your article where Gen Craddock, new in his position was asked some pointed questions regarding a serious lack of reconstruction measures of effectiveness and progress for both Iraq and Afghanistan missions.

Peace & Conflict Planners Canada was contracted by CF-JOG (Joint Operations Group) to develop a post-conflict reconstruction measures of effectiveness system and framework for the Canadian military reconstruction operations in Afghanistan.

We used the 63 NATO metrics as a base point and then developed the worlds most advanced reconstruction command and control (real time) network centric technology system based in effects based peace operations logic. EBO is a war craft logic, which we modified to suite a hearts and minds humanitarian objective, which served the recipient populations as its primary objective. Using advanced technologies we invented a system that could calculate all existing and future data metrics systems.

The PCR-MOE project was lost on the shelf between rotating commanders at CF-JOG as surely as have countless projects at NATO. The only problem with missing reconstruction MOE’s is that they are directly the reason for missing billions in reconstruction spending. These missing funds have resulted in mission failure in reconstruction and stabilization operations, and are the cause of growing concern.

Peace & Conflict Planners is Canada’s leading private sector reconstruction corporation currently in Brussels attempting to introduce its PCR-MOE framework to NATO leadership.