I didn't realize I looked quite that eager.
You were mentioning the wages that the neo-Taliban is allegedly able to provide to its recruits. I've seen similar figures. Of course, there are conflicting reports on this. I've seen everything from $6 to $10 to $12. I think the UN drug office actually says in its recent report--the report on the 59% increase in the harvest--that it's up to $10 to $12, and that's more than double what people can get in the legitimate economy or from joining the police force. It's a serious problem, although the problem isn't just one of the resources available for an alternative livelihood. It's also an issue of people being driven to the Taliban in order to get protection for the livelihood they have, as they perceive it. I think the eradication policy is not working in our interest for that reason.
Personally--and in some ways I'm responding to the other witness, and maybe I shouldn't--I'm less enamoured with the idea of building democracy in Afghanistan than I am with being clear and modest about our goals in Afghanistan. I think that fundamentally we will never succeed in transforming that country into a kind of Sweden or into a shining example of democracy and development--not that you were suggesting that, but I think it's important to be clear.
Even talking about human security, in some ways, is too vague and ambitious for Afghanistan. Our interest, I think, and NATO's interest is to prevent this country from becoming, once again, a major base for transnational terrorism. Everything else flows from that. We need a government that's perceived as legitimate by most of the people there, and a government that's able to maintain a reasonable degree of security in most of the country, which are more modest goals, I think.