DCFR brief about Afghanistan, Pakistan, and U.S. Power, based on an interview with Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad on Sept 20, 2011.

1. ‘
‘ Global Themes
an issues brief series of the Dallas Committee on Foreign Relations
DCFR
Dallas Committee on Foreign Relations
Issue No. 3 October 3, 2011
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and U.S. Power
An Interview with Zalmay Khalilzad, former Ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the U.N.
“One of our most serious challenges in foreign policy is the relationship between
Afghanistan-Pakistan-U.S. the U.S. and Pakistan—the Pakistani policy towards Afghanistan and towards
Challenges extremism and terror in general. Pakistan has been both an ally and an adver-
sary on these issues at the same time. It is perhaps in a unique class of countries
Jennifer Warren: What would you where it’s both a foe and a friend.”
say are the greatest challenges in
Afghanistan regarding security and dissatisfied. Their dissatisfaction leadership by 2014. Between now
stability? leads some to become indifferent and then can we achieve some
between the insurgents and the agreement between Afghanistan
Zalmay Khalilzad: Three main
government. In some cases, it may and Pakistan that facilitates
challenges exist. One is the
even encourage some people to join reconciliation inside Afghanistan?
relationship between Afghanistan
the insurgency in opposition to the Can we help the Afghans improve
and Pakistan. Pakistan provides
government. governance? With such positive
sanctuary and support to the
changes we can reduce our forces
insurgents fighting in Afghanistan. The third factor is, of course, the significantly and in a very orderly
We need to reach an agreement U.S. and international support and manner. I do believe that as long
between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and presence in Afghanistan. There is as there is an al-Qaeda threat in the
the United States that eliminates war fatigue in the West. Given U.S. region, the U.S. will want to have a
these sanctuaries and changes concerns about its own economic residual presence in Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s policy of support for the situation, there is a desire to pull
insurgents. That’s critical to achieve back and to transfer responsibility JW: What do you think should be
success in the short term. as quickly as possible to the done about the triad relationship
Afghans. The challenge is to do it between the U.S., Pakistan, and
A second source of security
in a way that doesn’t undermine the Afghanistan regarding foreign
problems is weaknesses in
achievements of the last ten years, policy? Can you break down the
Afghanistan’s government.
and bring back the problems of Pakistan-Afghanistan part and the
On the positive side, there is
al-Qaeda or the Taliban-al-Qaeda U.S.-Pakistan part in more detail?
the buildup of Afghan security
combination to Afghanistan.
institutions, which is going
well. This development makes These three issues are interlinked:
On September 20th, DCFR President
it possible for Afghans to take the regional dynamics, the Afghan
government factor, and the U.S.- Jennifer Warren interviewed Zalmay
on more responsibility for their
international factor. Khalilzad, former Ambassador to
security. On the negative side,
when it comes to governance, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the U.N. He
the rule of law, and dealing with President Obama has said that the currently leads the global consultancy
corruption, the government has lead for security responsibility Gryphon Partners. This brief’s content
serious shortcomings. Afghans are will be transferred to the Afghan is based on his comments.
4925 Greenville Ave, Suite 1025 | Dallas, Texas 75206 | 214.750.1271 | dallascfr.org

2. 2
ZK: One of our most serious and others who are fighting us in could be dealt with. We need to
challenges in foreign policy is the Afghanistan. look at a longer term relationship
relationship between the U.S. and with Pakistan. To Pakistanis, it
Pakistan—the Pakistani policy When we consider the positive appears that as long as America
towards Afghanistan and towards things Pakistan is doing and when has a problem in Afghanistan and
extremism and terror in general. we worry about Pakistan’s domestic with al-Qaeda, it will pay attention
Pakistan has been both an ally and weaknesses, we tend to want to to Pakistan and provide assistance.
an adversary on these issues at the engage and provide assistance. But When that threat goes away,
same time. It is perhaps in a unique regarding the negative Pakistani America will abandon them as was
class of countries where it’s both a actions, we want to pressure them. done after the Soviet withdrawal
foe and a friend. We pressure them when they’re from Afghanistan. We have taught
ambivalent about fighting al-Qaeda. Pakistan a bad lesson – that as long
JW: A frenemy? However, this policy of pressure, as there is a problem, and they’re
engagement, and support has not yet helping with that problem – we
ZK: Frenemy may be the right brought about a change in Pakistani pay attention to them and provide
word for it. In confronting the behavior, particularly with regard to financial support. They then have an
challenges of extremism and terror Afghanistan. The U.S. and Pakistan interest in continuing the problem.
in Afghanistan, Pakistan on some are working at cross-purposes It’s mostly about continuing to
issues has an honorable record, between each other in Afghanistan. receive U.S. money and support.
for example, allowing supplies
for our troops through Pakistan. JW: So do you think it’s a reactive
On the other hand, if Pakistan
However, because Pakistan began policy as opposed to crafting a
continues with policies that result
using that as leverage and causing holistic, strategic policy with
potentially in defeat for the U.S.
difficulties, we have opened up a Pakistan? Is it just coping?
corridor in the north, from central ZK: The policy of
Asia, the Caucuses, and Russia to engagement and
bring in supplies. Almost 50% of pressure has been
what we formerly used to transport designed to change
in the early years via land through Pakistan’s behavior.
Pakistan now comes from the north, It certainly hasn’t
avoiding Pakistan. This is a very been sufficient,
important change. and it obviously
A second factor is al-Qaeda. hasn’t worked so
Pakistan has a mixed record. We do far. While it has
attack al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan. prevented relations
We’ve had great successes in that from turning
regard. The success in part has been completely hostile
based on cooperation from Pakistan, or from relations
breaking down between the U.S. in Afghanistan or the return of
though we would like to see more. extremists, terrorists, the Taliban
We are also concerned about and Pakistan, it hasn’t produced
the change we have been seeking. and al-Qaeda to Afghanistan,
Pakistan’s own future because it has I believe we need to pressure
nuclear weapons and because it’s a Therefore, that aspect needs to be
reviewed. them more. We have to make
large country of 180 million people. assistance considerably more
We do not want it to be taken over I have been an advocate for squarely conditional, particularly in the
by extremists or fragment. But putting more of the positive and security domain. I support a policy
the Pakistani state, especially its negative on the table to bring about of support for civil society and
security institutions, particularly its a change in Pakistan’s calculus. political reform for Pakistan, that
intelligence agency, has very close On the positive side, we need to is, policies that can assist with a
relationships with extremists and initiate a major diplomatic effort long-term transformation and the
has used them as an instrument of to deal with Pakistan’s legitimate empowerment of a new generation
policy in Afghanistan and India. concerns in Afghanistan. What is it of leaders. We have to contain and
Currently, Pakistan supports the that Pakistan wants in Afghanistan? manage Pakistan for the short term.
Taliban, the Haqqani network, Let’s see if there are issues that I would consider implementing

3. 3
more operations against terrorists, “The multi-polar world was not a peaceful world. It was a world of two world wars, for
the Taliban, and the Haqqani example. If multi-polarity is inevitable, later is better than sooner; we need to get our
network targets in Pakistan. We economic house in order. In my view, that’s a national security imperative.”
should implement the positive
things first and if Pakistani policies geopolitical disputes that have been disintegration of Pakistan and
do not change, we should shift to a an impediment. Afghanistan could become stronger. There are
much tougher policy including the be a beneficiary of such an effort. obviously potential nuclear
steps I outlined. One of the potential sources of terrorism threats. Pieces of nuclear
economic viability for Afghanistan equipment or material could fall
As part of the positive steps, we is its transit position between South into the hands of extremists and
also need to consider a larger Asia and Central Asia. If expanded, terrorists. Right now, al-Qaeda is
regional strategy such as economic it could be a hub for regional on the ropes. Osama bin Laden
integration and the resolution trade and create opportunities for has been killed as have many other
of some of these outstanding employment and economic key leaders. Analysts discuss the
problems. My overall sense is progress. probability of the military wing
that our diplomacy has not been of the organization being defeated
focused or engaged to mobilize JW: Is there a threat that could in a few years. That is very much
other major players in support of the blindside the U.S. and the contingent on other things working
stabilization of the region, including global community? Do we have to the proper effect and outcome.
the Afghan-Pakistan relationship. misconceptions that are driving our If Afghanistan falls apart, al-Qaeda
policies and therefore we might has a much bigger territory to
JW: Do the Pakistani people be making missteps because we’re operate in, which will help make
understand that they could have looking through this U.S. prism? al-Qaeda stronger. If Iraq falls apart,
development and better lives, if again that is another challenge. If
their country wasn’t dominated ZK: I think that the biggest question Pakistan falls apart, that’s another
that may shape the region for problem. If the U.S. declares victory
by these security threats and the
the long term is what happens to and takes its eye off the ball, that
military? My impression is that they presents another scenario with
are powerless. Pakistan. If Pakistan continues on many negative implications. The
its current path, over-investment situation is unpredictable. With so
ZK: It’s easy to mobilize the in its security establishment and many possible potential scenarios to
Pakistani people vis-à-vis India, under-investment on the civilian track, the challenge becomes which
which has been one of their chronic side, there are risks… problems do you pay attention to
problems. The dominant security and which ones do you not?
There is growing insurgency inside
state that Pakistan has become, the
of Pakistan. Not only is there JW: How would you assess Iraq’s
army and the security apparatus,
the Pakistani Taliban (which the progress? If things go well in
is a large part of the budget while
Pakistan government opposes), the Iraq—civil societies created and
other institutions have suffered.
Afghan Taliban (which the Pakistani institutions keep being built—how
If you consider the basic factors
military and intelligence services long will it take before Iraq is
such as education that is one of
support), and the insurgency in a leader and a role model in the
the indicators whether a country
Balochistan, you could have forces Middle East?
is likely to be successful or not,
that work
Pakistan is not doing well. But
for the
their security apparatus still has a
disproportionate claim to resources
that is tolerated and supported
because of India. That’s why part of
the broader strategic effort has to be
the regional stabilization of South
Asia, partly because India has taken
off economically. There may be
imaginative ways to deal with the
issues between India and Pakistan,
shifting the focus to more economic
cooperation rather than the old

4. 4 June 21, 2011
ZK: If the Iraqi political forces that to develop and benefit economically very careful. If we don’t revive our
have made an agreement to work will provide us with leverage economy and deal with our fiscal
together honor that agreement, I to bring China into this large issues while other powers continue
think Iraq will be well on its way. diplomatic effort that I discussed growing at a much faster rate, such
They have many resources, but earlier. Perhaps we could work as China, India, and Brazil, over
the habit of political cooperation together along with other players an extensive period of time, we
among rivals doesn’t come for a settlement of the Pakistan/ risk returning to a world of multi-
easy. Political cooperation has Afghan dispute. polarity. Such a world could be
been difficult. Issues are viewed similar to the multi-polar system
as black and white: ‘I’m right and Insofar as there are elements of of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
you’re wrong.’ This system of competition between the U.S. and In a world where the U.S. has been
democracy is novel. So there are China, maybe the Chinese would pre-eminent, we have witnessed the
great challenges to overcome, but not want us to stay in Afghanistan dangers and risks of terrorist attacks
also great potential exists in Iraq. indefinitely. But U.S. commitments and small conflicts, but if we arrive
To achieve this potential, when the in Afghanistan perhaps benefit at a multi-polar world, the risk of
political elite arrive at agreements, China in other ways. We have big wars would return. Obviously
they have to implement them. The been highly focused on terrorism that would not be desirable. The
recent agreement that was the basis militarily in this region, rather multi-polar world was not a
for the formation of the government than focusing on Asia, which peaceful world. It was a world of
has not been implemented to the is an area of cooperation and two world wars, for example. If
degree necessary. competition between the U.S. multi-polarity is inevitable, later is
and China. While we have been better than sooner; we need to get
China in the region tied down in Afghanistan and our economic house in order. In
JW: The Chinese are signing Iraq, they have focused on their my view, that’s a national security
contracts for commodities economy and East Asia. We need imperative.
extraction and energy resource to adjust our vision and be more
exploration in Afghanistan. Do focused on that important part of As we do so, the U.S. needs to be
you see them having any other the world, including China’s rise more selective in the use of force.
role in Afghanistan outside of their and its implications. There may be When we do use force, we should
economic interests? potential for some cooperation in engage in multilateral operations to
this region that we need to explore limit our exposure. When engaged
ZK: The Chinese are aggressively more vigilantly. in another country, we should be
pursuing their economic interests very careful about the mission, and
Future of U.S. leadership know that it can be accomplished
in Afghanistan and the region.
They have already gained copper JW: How have your views evolved with reasonable costs and terms,
concessions in Afghanistan. CNPC, about U.S. leadership in a post-Iraq thinking this through carefully. We
the major Chinese oil company, world, with ongoing involvement need to play the role of catalyzing
recently won a concession for in Afghanistan, Middle East coalitions more. If our own vital
developing oil blocks in the north. revolutions, and a rising Asia/ interests are at risk, of course
But they also have an interest in China?
countering extremists and terrorists.
We have this interest in common ZK: I think the
with the Chinese, as they have their U.S. is still the
own security problems in Xianjiang most important
and the area near Afghanistan’s and power in the
Pakistan’s borders. Historically, world, militarily
they have had strong relations and in terms of
with Pakistan. The China-Pakistan overall economic
relationship is one of the stronger prowess, despite
relationships that China has had our problems.
with any country in the region. I We also have soft
believe our common interests with power capabilities.
China on extremism and their desire We need to be

5. 5
ultimately we will go alone, if we Disruption.” Besides weapons of This region of which we speak,
have to. Obviously, the best option mass destruction, this could be very including Pakistan, Afghanistan,
is to engage multilaterally and as consequential. and the intersecting areas of the
selectively as possible. Greater Middle East, Asia, and
New mindset needed Africa is very much reminiscent of
We need to be more attentive to old Europe, where countries were
Asia and the balance of power JW: For a while, private foreign
direct investment was flowing into constantly trying to cause problems
changes that are taking place for each other. There is very little
with China’s and India’s growth. Pakistan. Because of security issues,
investors are looking to other places economic cooperation. There is
At the same time, we must keep very little cross-border trade among
an eye on the Middle East and such as Africa, China, and India,
instead of Pakistan… the players in the region. Most of
Southwest Asia, especially as long their trade is with powers farther
as extremism and terrorism remain away. They’re often not very
a challenge. We need to be attentive ZK: In that part of the world, of
democratic in their politics. The rule
to new threats—which include course, a change in mindset is
of law is very limited. Military and
not only the existing threats from needed. That region is a bit like
security institutions are strong.
nuclear proliferation, terrorism, old Europe, I mean eighteenth
geopolitical and economic changes, and nineteenth century Europe The region is dysfunctional. That’s
but also the issue of cyber threats. where there was an excessive why the Arab Spring has been a
Situations may evolve where focus on geopolitics and where hopeful development for many
there will be not only states but greatness was defined by territorial people — that maybe there can be
groups, even individuals, posing acquisition—imperial design, transformation in the region with
a significant threat of disruption, so to speak. After World War the right priorities put forth front
theft, or breaching our intelligence II, the Europeans became wiser. and center, such as the rule of law,
secrets. How do we deal with cyber They began to engage in earnest employment, and democracy. This
issues in terms of deterrence, economic cooperation, which has formula is not so secret. It has
defense, and prevention? All of led to political cooperation. That worked in other parts of the world.
these issues that were important cooperation is currently under stress It can work here as well. It’s not
during the nuclear period of the but the Europeans have achieved like you’re discovering something
Cold War era may resurface as we a greater level of security and that hasn’t been tried in many
move toward the spread of what prosperity than ever in their history. places.
can be called “Weapons of Mass
GeoEdge The Dallas Committee on Foreign Relations takes no institutional positions on policy issues. The views ex-
pressed and facts presented in DCFR publications are the responsibility of the author or authors.
BLOG
For additional information about DCFR, please visit our website
Exploring the frontlines of
at www.dallascfr.org.
foreign affairs
Dallas Committee on Foreign Relations is a non-profit organization focused on explor-
ing leading-edge developments in foreign affairs. Our mission is to promote knowledge
http://geoedge.org/ of global affairs and a better understanding of the people and events impacting impor-
tant policy choices of the future.
For more information contact:
Dallas Committee on Foreign Relations
4925 Greenville Ave, Suite 1025 Dallas, Texas 75206
dcfr@dallascfr.org 214.750.1271