How will we know that America's huge sacrifice in lives and wealth in Iraq and Afghanistan will have some positive payoff? The conventional answer to that question hinges on the level of violence and the prevalence of American-style democracy.

But, if history is any guide, neither country will enjoy a stable future free of terrorists that threaten global security unless the Iraqi and Afghan economies experience sustained economic growth.

To its credit, the Obama Administration's recently released National Security Strategy recognizes that "building the capacity" for economic growth, along with security and good governance, is the "only path to long term peace and security." But the economic realities on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan are mixed. The inherently spotty GDP statistics show that Afghanistan has been growing far more rapidly and consistently than Iraq, but this is only because of the huge infusions of international aid. Iraqis still largely view their economic future through the murky lens of oil, and poppy still plays a huge role in the Afghan economy.

Indeed, neither country is alone. Neither Congress nor the White House, including the Bush administration, has given economic growth the priority it deserves as among the most important keys to long run stability abroad and our security at home.

That may be beginning to change. Last week, the Kauffman Foundation and the Command and General Staff College Foundation at Ft. Leavenworth convened the nation's first ever conference on "Expeditionary Economics." Leading thinkers and practitioners-including high-ranking military officers, leading academic scholars, and experienced professionals from the aid community-came together to consider how best to secure sustained economic growth after conflicts and large natural disasters, such as the earthquake in Haiti.

While we did not agree on some issues (not too surprising for a "first ever" conference), what we did seem to agree on is important and deserves wide recognition by policymakers here and elsewhere.

First and foremost, we agreed on the centrality of growth. When economic pies are growing, people have less reason to fight each other, or to fight us. It is that simple.

Second, we recognized there is and has been no clear strategy for facilitating sustained growth in Afghanistan or Iraq. In theory, economists would be of some help. But in practice, there is no consensus among economists about what factors are most central to growth, and hardly any economists have sufficient experience in the messy and dangerous environments of conflict-ridden societies.

Third, the U.S. military has been forced by default to practice Expeditionary Economics, but in an admittedly ad hoc fashion: handing out emergency response funds to tribal leaders and a few local entrepreneurs, bringing in foreign contractors to rebuild infrastructure that in some cases have been attractive targets for terrorist attacks, and in some cases (but not enough) contracting with local firms. We are slowly learning by doing but, all would admit, too slowly.

Fourth, the US civilian aid presence has been far too thin to have had a noticeable impact. In addition, aid practitioners have not been guided by any coherent strategy.

We can and must do better, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in countless other poor, failed states that are already ideal petri dishes for terrorism. How?

We would modestly suggest that policy start by focusing on the formation and growth of firms-economies, after all, are no more than the sum of the activities of the firms that populate them. Surprisingly, Afghanistan now ranks 23rd in the world in how quickly its citizens can incorporate a new business-it only takes a week, according to the World Bank. This is remarkably promising, but Afghan entrepreneurs still face an array of barriers to growth companies such as ineffective contract enforcement and the absence of property registration (it takes 250 days to register property). Iraq fares even more poorly in the barriers it erects to entrepreneurship-it takes 77 days to form a business there.

We can help these and other countries fix such problems. But we need to recognize the importance of the task and begin to have a long needed dialogue about what Expeditionary Economics should look like.

In fact, as the conference keynote speaker, historian Niall Ferguson, reminded us, we have no choice. China is already practicing its own brand of expeditionary economics by buying land and mineral rights throughout Africa, giving menial jobs to Africans in the process but not training or giving them the chance to be entrepreneurs.

We have the most successful entrepreneurial economy in the world. One would think that we can do better, not only by doing a more equitable job of promoting growth and stability around the world, but in a way that is consistent with our values. That is true national security.