Karl Eikenberry has a unique perspective on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. The former ambassador to Kabul, his 35-year career in the army includes an 18-month tour as commander of the U.S.-led coalition forces in the country. As the conflict hit the 10-year mark, Eikenberry discussed President Obama’s Afghanistan strategy, the challenge of working with Pakistan, and the problem of overpromising.

We are coming up on 10 years in Afghanistan. What’s your snapshot of where we are now and where Afghanistan is going?

We're on the right path. The president has adopted a strategy that by the end of 2014 – if it’s well implemented – will have us in a position, and have the Afghans in a position, where the Afghans will be fully responsible for providing their own security.

It's going to require that the Afghan army and the Afghan police continue to develop sufficient capabilities so that by 2014 they have the right numbers and the right quality to allow our military forces to step back into a supporting role. It's going to require that the Afghan government continues to make improvements in terms of its accountability and its responsiveness to its people. And third, it's going to require that Pakistan make more efforts to attack the sanctuaries that Afghan Taliban currently enjoys there.

That doesn't mean we’ll be at a point where the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan ends. We'll continue to provide security assistance to the Afghan national security forces beyond 2014. We will continue to have a robust diplomatic mission at the end of 2014. I would expect that we'll still have a substantial foreign assistance program to Afghanistan – not at the level it is right now, but still substantial by global standards, and we’ll still, I expect, remain very diplomatically engaged in that part of the world.

So you've laid out three things: capacity building, governance, and Pakistan. Can we accomplish all three?

I think we have a reasonable possibility for success. I would not put probability against that. We know how to do capacity building especially with security forces, and I'd say over the last decade, we’ve made some important gains in knowing how to do that. It takes time, it takes resources, and it takes patience. The second thing – "good governance" – that's harder.

Ultimately, you can only have success in the first category of capacity building if you have success in the second category because all those institutions have to rest upon a foundation of what the people might say is reasonable, good governance, something that they’re willing to voluntarily support. That's more problematic.

The third category, Pakistan, is even more problematic. Their support of the Afghan Taliban is still seen by some elements within the state of Pakistan as being in their national security interest.

Are there things you think the U.S. policy makers have learned in Afghanistan that can be applied elsewhere?

I do. If you look in any of the domains we’re working in in Afghanistan – security assistance, rule of law, education and health – there are good lessons we've learned over time. Americans are extraordinarily adaptive. We’re creative. One of our good characteristics is that we frequently pull back from an enterprise, sum up lessons learned, be self critical, and continue to improve.

Another lesson learned coming out of Afghanistan may be the need to get a better understanding of what’s realistic in terms of setting goals and objectives. When we went into Afghanistan it’s fair to say that all of us – the international community, the Americans, the Afghans – did not fully understand the level of effort that would be needed to achieve some of the goals and objectives that we initially set for ourselves. 

I think if we could roll the clock back and go back in time, one of the lessons is that we might have tried to under promise more and then over deliver. When we went in in 2001 and 2002 we had talked about infrastructure that would be developed, how fast institutions would be built, how fast representative democracy might be able to take hold.

I think historians will look back and say they didn't really understand the complexities and the problems, they didn’t fully understand just how difficult this might all be.

Program to enhance global reach and innovation research at business school

We are thrilled to welcome SPRIE, a catalyst for cutting-edge knowledge in this space, and a natural fit for us.
- Garth Saloner, Dean of the Stanford Graduate School of Business

STANFORD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS — The Stanford Program on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship has joined the Graduate School of Business, where it will expand and enhance the depth and reach of global content for the school's academic programs and research.

The Stanford Program on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (SPRIE) is focused on understanding the development and practice of innovation and entrepreneurship around the world. Current research focuses on the dynamics and sustainability of Silicon Valley and high-technology areas across Europe and Asia, including those in mainland China, Taiwan, Japan, India, Korea, and their collaboration and competition in the evolving global innovation network. Specific projects focus on "Silicon Valley Transforming," the rise and implications of China's internet industry ("China 2.0"), Japanese entrepreneurship ("STAJE"), and clean energy and urbanization ("Smart Green Cities").

SPRIE's core activities include global interdisciplinary research, seminars, and conferences, as well as publications and briefings for industry and government leaders. Upcoming events this month at Stanford include a panel discussion, "Re-examining the State of Japanese Entrepreneurship," on Sept. 21 and "China 2.0: Transforming Media and Commerce in China," SPRIE's third in a series of highly successful forums. Keynotes for "China 2.0" on Sept. 30 will include investors, entrepreneurs, and founders or CEOs of billion-dollar Chinese internet firms, including Jack Ma of Alibaba and Joe Chen, MBA '99, of RenRen.

"Innovation and entrepreneurship are hallmarks of the GSB experience," said Garth Saloner, dean of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. "We are thrilled to welcome SPRIE, a catalyst for cutting-edge knowledge in this space, and a natural fit for us. SPRIE complements and augments many of our existing efforts, including the Center for Entrepreneurial Studies and the Center for Global Business and the Economy."

Previously housed at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, SPRIE is led by faculty directors William F. Miller and Henry S. Rowen, as well as Associate Director Marguerite Gong Hancock. Miller, the former provost of Stanford University and the Herbert Hoover Professor of Public and Private Management, Emeritus, at the business school, is also a professor emeritus of computer science at the engineering school. He was CEO of SRI International, where he established a spin-out and commercialization program. Rowen is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Edward P. Rust Professor of Public Policy and Management, Emeritus, at the business school, as well as former president of the RAND Corporation. He is an expert on international security, economic development, and high-tech industries in the United States and Asia.

Hancock leads research initiatives, conferences, and publications on topics ranging from "China 2.0: The Rise of a Digital Superpower" to "Smart Green Cities." She is coeditor of books published by Stanford University Press: The Silicon Valley Edge (2000), Making IT: The Rise of Asia in High Tech (2006), and Greater China's Quest for Innovation (2008). Hancock also codirects SPRIE executive and policymaker training programs on leading innovation and entrepreneurial regions in the global economy.

"We are very pleased to join the Graduate School of Business and look forward to collaborating on international and interdisciplinary research and conferences relevant to business students, executives, and government leaders from around the world who are focused on leading innovation and creating value," said Miller.

SPRIE research focuses on the nexus of innovation and entrepreneurship in high-technology clusters, through questions such as:

• What factors enable innovative and entrepreneurial regions to advance and be sustained? What divergent models and strategies are evident in emerging regions?
• Why have some regions lagged, despite strong assets such as skilled workers or capital investments? What obstacles hinder a region's development?
• How do the flows of ideas, technology, people, and capital define new global linkages? How do these shape the emerging global high-technology system?
• With the rise of China, India, and other high-technology powerhouses, what new patterns of interaction are emerging among major players? How can companies and governments best respond to new critical challenges and opportunities?

For more information on research, executive programs, or events at SPRIE, contact Yan Mei at yanmei@stanford.edu or visit http://sprie.gsb.stanford.edu.

---

For More Information Contact: Barbara Buell, Director of Communications, Stanford Graduate School of Business at buell_barbara@gsb.stanford.edu or 650-723-1771.

For Comment: Marguerite Hancock, Associate Director, Stanford Program on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Graduate School of Business at mhancock@stanford.edu or 650-723-4588.