One thing is clear: the degree to which efforts by the international community -- the United States, its allies and the United Nations -- are successful will be key to Afghanistan's future peace and stability. But while massive amounts of foreign aid should -- and will -- be the basis for recovery, such assistance also must be part of a larger strategy which not only encompasses immediate issues such as emergency relief, but also long-term development, such as restoring Afghanistan's war-ravaged environment.

Afghanistan differs from the reconstruction efforts in Kosovo and East Timor because so much of the country has been destroyed. From every perspective, the situation in Afghanistan is dire -- social, political, economic.

The international community needs to address a wide range of issues in parallel, including aid to refugees and the provision of emergency assistance, return of refugees and the internally displaced; community development and the creation of administrative structures and the basic institutions of civil society (i.e. "nation building"), all at a cost of billions of dollars.

Out of a population of 22.7 million, 6 million Afghans are currently at risk for starvation. The infrastructure has largely been destroyed with little agriculture possible as a result of the war and drought.

Afghanistan is also in the unenviable position of having one of the worst land mine problems in the world. Getting food to those who need it most is of paramount importance now to avoid a humanitarian tragedy; while getting the agricultural economy in shape and people back to work is critical for the future.

The international community has begun to lay the groundwork for a recovery and reconstruction operation. The challenge is huge, not the least of which is the coordination of the many actors involved in such an undertaking. Of course, until security is fully restored, these plans cannot be implemented in full.

Mark Malloch-Brown, head of reconstruction for the U.N. Development Program, has rightly called for a strong emphasis on the development of the capabilities and resources of the Afghan people. However, the international community must first supply its knowledge, skills and leadership. A balance must be achieved -- as soon as possible -- between creating incentives for the involvement of the Afghani population and reliance on outside assistance.

In any event, now is the time to capitalize on the world's attention. Field workers in humanitarian interventions often refer to a "gap," or difference in approach, between those providing humanitarian assistance and those working on development.

Environmental management is a striking example of how and why reconstruction efforts need to be integrated. A huge difference can be made by ensuring sound environmental management in ways that protect and improve lives in the short term and build on opportunities to use resources more efficiently.

Typically seen as an issue of development, the environment has long been absent as a focal point at early stages of conflict. And yet, protecting the environment often goes hand in hand with the most effective form of humanitarian assistance and post-emergency transitions when adapted to local conditions.

Almost every basic humanitarian need has an environmental component that will continue to be important for the foreseeable future. This means that the approach taken now must consider the long view and close this artificial gap.

For example, instead of rebuilding conventional, dirty diesel and oil power plants, the restoration of electric power could involve both the construction of distributed, clean micro turbines to provide electricity and heat and the development of wind and solar energy; the provision of clean water could be made more accessible through improved reconstruction of wells, development of efficient irrigation systems and monitoring of water quality; the creation of innovative sanitation and waste treatment facilities could be designed to reduce risks to human health and destruction to the environment.

True, anything would be an improvement in Afghanistan right now. But rather than take a standard approach to reconstruction, the international community should consider the ashes of Afghanistan an opportunity to work with the Afghan people to create something much better than they had before, something that will withstand time and take less from the environment, while building on peaceful incentives for the future.

Margesson is a foreign affairs analyst with the Congressional Research Service in Washington, D.C. She also is completing her  Ph.D. at Tufts Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.