If the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago is to be more than an exchange of lofty speeches and question-riddled commitments about the future of Afghanistan, it is time to take a hard look at the promises the United States and others are making -- and whether they are too big to keep.
GAYLE TZEMACH LEMMON is the author of The Dressmaker of Khair Khana. She is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Since 2001, Afghanistan's economy has grown at an impressive rate and major development indicators in the country have improved dramatically. Even security and the rule of law -- long neglected -- are now improving. Washington and its allies could still win in Afghanistan if they are given the time they need.

Exploding ordnance amid the poppy fields of Kandahar Province. (Baz Ratner / Courtesy Reuters)
If there is to be a viable way forward in Afghanistan -- one that can reconcile on-the-ground developments with American timelines for withdrawal -- Washington has to start talking about tradeoffs. Both President Barack Obama and U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker have publicly assured Afghans that the United States will not repeat the mistakes of the 1990s, when the world left the country to its own devices. The result, of course, was civil war and Taliban rule. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has vowed to Afghan women, "We will not abandon you." Washington has also agreed to continue economic and social assistance to help make Afghanistan's gains "self-sustaining" past the U.S. withdrawal in 2014.
But no one works under the illusion that U.S. forces would re-enter Afghanistan to protect women's rights. And the president is already framing investing in Afghanistan as a tradeoff with "nation building at home," which makes it difficult to envision sustained, long-term funding for programs in Afghanistan that create jobs and keep children in school.
Yet tradeoffs were absent from the president's address from Bagram Air Base on May 1. The administration must come clean about what international forces can and can't execute before world leaders assemble later this month at the NATO summit in Chicago to discuss the future of Afghanistan. If this gathering is to be more than an exchange of lofty speeches and question-riddled commitments, it is time to take a hard and realistic look at the promises that the United States and others are making to Afghanistan -- and whether they are too big to keep...
Related
The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is driven largely by domestic politics. That is a privilege of a country that is both rich and safe. But the United States has security interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan that, despite its best attempts, it will not be able to ignore.
As international partners gather in Bonn to plan a withdrawal after 10 years of fighting in Afghanistan, the U.S. deputy secretary of state makes a case for an economic foundation for the country's future.
As Washington plans its exit from Afghanistan, a new argument has surfaced about who, exactly, American forces should be fighting. But the answer is simple. The Haqqani network, the most capable and lethal group on both sides of the Durand line, poses the biggest long-term threat.
