POST 2014 Afghanistan Report

Pakistan, the United States and
the End Game in Afghanistan:

Perceptions of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Elite
A Jinnah Institute
Research Report
Authors: Moeed Yusuf, Huma Yusuf and Salman Zaidi
Copyright Jinnah Institute 2011
R0811-04
This publication has been produced with the

support of United States Institute of Peace.
A Jinnah Institute Research Report
Pakistan, the United

States and the End Game
in Afghanistan:
Perceptions of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Elite
Pakistan, the United States, and
the End Game in Afghanistan
Project Team
2
Project Directors
Sherry Rehman
Sherry Rehman is a ranking member of the National Security Committee of
Pakistan's Parliament and founding President of the Jinnah Institute in
Islamabad, an independent public policy institute committed to regional peace
and inclusive democracy in Pakistan. She co-chairs several track-two strategic
dialogues. She has served as Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting
of Pakistan from March 2008 to March 2009.
Rehman lectures widely on strategic security challenges facing Pakistan, and is a key
member of the Legislative Councils that govern both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-
Baltistan. Rehman’s background as a senior professional journalist for twenty years
has given her wide media outreach as an incumbent second-term law-maker with a
frontline public position against religious extremism. Her most recent awards
include formal recognition as “Democracy’s Hero” by the International Republican
Institute, US, and the Jeanne Kirkpatric Award for Women in 2011.
Moeed Yusuf
Moeed Yusuf is the South Asia advisor at the United States Institute of Peace and
is responsible for managing the Institute’s Pakistan program. Before joining USIP,
Yusuf was a fellow at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-
Range Future at Boston University, and concurrently a research fellow at the
Mossavar-Rahmani Center at Harvard Kennedy School. In 2007, he co-founded
Strategic and Economic Policy Research, a private sector consultancy firm in
Pakistan. He has also consulted for a number of Pakistani and international
organizations.
Yusuf taught at Boston University's Political Science and International Relations

Departments as a senior teaching fellow. He has published widely in national and
international journals, professional publications and magazines. He writes a
column for Dawn, Pakistan and regularly appears as an expert on U.S. and
Pakistani media. He recently testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on U.S.-Pakistan relations.
Authors 3
Moeed Yusuf
Huma Yusuf
Huma Yusuf is an award-winning columnist and investigative journalist. She
writes a weekly column in the leading Pakistani English-language daily, Dawn,
on topics related to security, foreign relations, and human rights. Her column
has twice won the Best Column Award from the All Pakistan Newspapers
Society (2008 and 2010). She has also been awarded the UNESCO/Pakistan
Press Foundation ‘Gender in Journalism' Award (2005) and the European
Commission’s Prix Natali Lorenzo for Human Rights and Democracy Journalism
(2006).
In 2010-11, Yusuf was the Pakistan Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars (Washington D.C.) During her fellowship, she researched the
impact of the independent Pakistani media on politics, foreign policy
(particularly US-Pakistan relations), and society for a forthcoming book.
Salman Zaidi
Salman Zaidi is a Security Analyst at Jinnah Institute and co-manages the
Institute's conflict prevention initiatives through Track-II diplomacy between
India and Pakistan as well as coordinating research for the Strategic Security
program. He has a background in conflict research and has written on resource
conflicts in South Asia and the Middle East. Zaidi has previously worked for the
development sector in Pakistan, where he conducted monitoring and evaluation
of governance and conflict reduction projects in interior Sindh, Punjab.and
Balochistan.
Zaidi is currently working jointly on a study that maps trends in religious

extremism in Pakistan.
List of Project
Participants
4
Roundtable Discussions
Safiya Aftab Research Fellow, Strategic and Economic Policy
Research (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad
Samina Ahmed Project Director, South Asia, International Crisis

Group
Ashraf Ali President, FATA Research Center, Islamabad
Cyril Almeida Assistant Editor and columnist, Dawn
Masood Aslam Lieutenant General (Retd.), Pakistan Army;

former Commander XI Corps
Arif Ayub Ambassador (Retd.); former Pakistani

Ambassador to Afghanistan
Shahzad Chaudhry Air Vice-Marshal (Retd.), Pakistan Air Force;

Defense Analyst
Asad Durrani Lieutenant General (Retd.), Pakistan Army;

former Director General Inter-Services
Intelligence
Tariq Fatemi Ambassador (Retd.)
Imtiaz Gul Executive Director, Centre for Research and

Security Studies, Islamabad
Ejaz Haider Consulting Editor, The Friday Times

Mohsin Haider Brigadier (Retd.), Pakistan Army; Defense Analyst
Rifaat Hussain Chair, Department of Defense and Strategic

Studies, Quaid-e-Azam University

Zahid Hussain Senior Editor, Newsline; correspondent, Times of
London, Wall Street Journal
Zafar Jaspal Associate Professor, Department of International

Relations, Quaid-e-Azam University
Humayun Khan Ambassador (Retd.); former Foreign Secretary of

Pakistan
Simbal Khan Director Afghanistan and Central Asia, Institute

5
of Strategic Studies Islamabad
Raheel Khan Freelance journalist
Tanvir A. Khan Ambassador (Retd.); former Foreign Secretary of

Pakistan
Khalid Mahmood Ambassador (Retd.); former Pakistani

Ambassador to Oman
Khalid Maqbool Lieutenant General (Retd.), Pakistan Army; former

Governor of Punjab, Pakistan
Talat Masood Lieutenant General (Retd.), Pakistan Army;

former Secretary of Defense Production,
Pakistan
Hamid Mir Executive Editor, Geo News
Nadir Mir Brigadier (Retd.), Pakistan Army; Author and

Defense Analyst
Haider Rasool Mirza Barrister at Law, Mirza and Mirza Advocates and
Solicitors, Lahore
Rustam Shah Mohmand Ambassador (Retd.); former Pakistani

Ambassador to Afghanistan; former Chief
Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Saad Muhammad Brigadier (Retd.), Pakistan Army; Defense Analyst

Shaukat Qadir Brigadier (Retd.), Pakistan Army;
former President, Islamabad Policy
Research Institute
Mian Qadruddin Ambassador (Retd.); former Additional

Foreign Secretary of Pakistan
Rana Rahim Political Affairs Officer, United Nations

Assistance Mission in Afghanistan
Rasul Bux Rais Professor, Department of Humanities and

Social Sciences, Lahore University of
Management Sciences
Abbas Rashid Journalist and Chairman, Society for the

6
Advancement of Education, Lahore
Abdullah Riar former Senator, Pakistan Peoples Party;

former Federal Minister for Information Technology
Mahmood Shah Brigadier (Retd.), Pakistan Army;

former Secretary, Home and Tribal Affairs
Ibrahim Shinwari Former President Tribal Union of Journalists
Ahmer Bilal Soofi President, Research Society of International

Law; Advocate, Supreme Court of Pakistan
Juma Khan Sufi Author and progressive political activist
Ayaz Wazir Ambassador (Retd.)
Nasim Zehra Director, Current Affairs, Dunya TV

One-on-one interviews
Athar Abbas Major General, Pakistan Army; Director General,

Inter-Services Public Relations, Pakistan Military

Khurshid Ahmad Senator, Jama’at-e-Islami; Chairman, Institute of
Policy Studies, Islamabad
Ahsan Iqbal Member National Assembly and Deputy Secretary

General, Pakistan Muslim League (N);
former Federal Minister for Education
Jahangir Karamat General (Retd.), Pakistan Army; Founder and

Director, Spearhead Research, Lahore;
former Chief of Army Staff; former Pakistani
7
Ambassador to the U.S.
Khurshid Kasuri Chairman Steering Committee, Pakistan Muslim

League (Hum Khayal); former Foreign Minister of
Pakistan
Malik Amad Khan Member National Assembly, Pakistan Peoples

Party; former Minister of State for Foreign Affairs
Habibullah Khan former Additional Chief Secretary, FATA
Afrasiab Khattak Senator, Awami National Party; President, Awami

National Party, Pakhtunkhwa
Ahmed Rashid Journalist and Author; former correspondent, Far

Eastern Economic Review
Maulana Atta-ur-Rehman Member National Assembly, Jamiat-e-Ulema

Islam (F); former Federal Minister for Tourism
Waseem Sajjad Senator, Pakistan Muslim League (Q);

former caretaker President of Pakistan;
former Chairman, Senate of Pakistan
Farooq Sattar Member National Assembly and Deputy

Convener and Parliamentary leader,
Muttahida Qaumi Movement
Najam Sethi Editor-in-Chief, The Friday Times
Najmuddin Shaikh Ambassador (Retd.); former Foreign Secretary of

Pakistan
About the Jinnah Institute
Jinnah Institute is a non-profit public policy organization based in Pakistan. It
functions as a think tank, advocacy group and public outreach organization
independent of government. JI seeks to promote knowledge- based policy
making for strengthening democratic institutions and building public stakes
in human and national security discourse. It remains committed to investing
in policies that promote fundamental rights, tolerance and pluralism.
Jinnah Institute’s Strategic Security

Initiative (SSI)
JI actively seeks to articulate independent national security strategies for
Pakistan that incorporate the country’s stated policy imperatives while
making room for voices from civil society, parliament, academia and media
experts. Jinnah Institute’s SSI also encourages constructive engagement
between the international community and local policy and opinion makers
on key national security interests, with the goal of seeking broad strategic
convergences in multilateral and bilateral forums.
Jinnah Institute runs one of the leading peace initiatives with India through
sustained Track II engagement. It has been at the forefront of bringing
together stakeholders from India and Pakistan to develop bilateral strategies
for regional security and stability.
JI is committed to broadening Pakistan’s stake in pursuing informed and

inclusive policies on regional and global relationships with India, Afghanistan,
South and Central Asia, China, the EU, UK, and the United States.
Table of Contents

Foreword 10
Executive Summary 12
I. Introduction 16
II. Pakistan’s Objectives in Afghanistan: The Ideal versus the Achievable 20

The ideal 20
A reality check 21
III. Views on U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan 24
Civil-military disconnect 24
Failure to clearly identify the target of the military campaign 25
Bleak prognosis of the military surge 26 9
The debate about America’s post-2014 footprint 26
U.S. view of Pakistan’s role in the reconciliation phase 27
IV. Pakistan’s Afghanistan Policy: Reacting to the United States 28
Lack of clarity in Pakistan’s policy 28
A dual approach towards the United States 28
Support for political reconciliation in Afghanistan: Here and now 30
The flip side: Avoiding a return to the 1990s 33
Regional diplomacy 36
V. A Regional Framework: Views on Neutrality and Non-interference in Afghanistan as a Viable Option 37
VI. Other Impediments to Successful End Game Negotiations 40
Political situation in Afghanistan 40
Taliban’s willingness to negotiate 41
Afghanistan’s fragile economy 42
The future of the Afghan National Security Forces 43
VII. Moving Ahead: Key Countries and their Role in Promoting Peace in Afghanistan 44
Afghanistan 44
United States 45
Pakistan 46
India 47
Iran 48
VIII. Post-script: Does Osama Bin Laden’s Killing Impact the Afghanistan Calculus? 49
The impact of bin Laden’s death on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan 49
The U.S.-Pakistan relationship after bin Laden 50
Bin Laden’s influence on Pakistan’s security calculus in Afghanistan 51
The impact of bin Laden’s death within Afghanistan 52
Endnotes 53
Foreword
10
The importance of Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan and as a U.S.
partner in South Asia is indisputable. However, the perceptions
and interpretations of just what role Pakistan is able and willing
to play remains a matter of intense debate and controversy
around the world. The disconnect in policy perceptions is most
obviously manifest in the Pakistan-U.S. relationship. Despite
having worked extremely closely over the past decade, the
relationship remains marred with deep-seated mistrust and
mutual suspicions about each other’s intentions.
A
s the 2014 deadline for the Afghanistan transition approaches, Pakistan’s
role is likely to become even more important. This realization prompted
us to brainstorm ways in which the intellectual capacities of our Institutes
could be put to use to help improve mutual understanding between Pakistan
and the United States. We were concerned that tensions in bilateral ties,
heightened as they were due to the Raymond Davis affair when we were
considering this project, may prevent the two sides from complementing each
other’s efforts to attain a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan. We agreed that an
exercise that would allow both sides to comprehend the other’s interests and
policy choices better would be an important step in addressing some of the
prevailing mistrust.
The result was a United States Institute of Peace (USIP)-Jinnah Institute (JI),
Pakistan co-convened project, funded by USIP, aimed at gathering and
articulating informed Pakistani opinion on the evolving situation in
Afghanistan. This report outlines the major findings of the project. We hope that
the product will be a valuable step in understanding how Pakistan’s foreign
policy elite see their country’s policy preferences evolving in Afghanistan. As a
next step, we recognize the need for an identical exercise to bring about a
better understanding of U.S. policy and perceptions among Pakistanis.
We are grateful to all those who have helped make this project a success. The
program staff at USIP and Jinnah Institute rendered invaluable support. We

owe special gratitude to Salman Zaidi at Jinnah Institute for managing the
project. We are also grateful to Huma Yusuf who was brought in as a consulting
author on the report and to the Research Society of International Law for
providing a venue to host the round table discussion in Lahore. Most important
of all, we wish to thank our project participants who took the time to share
their perspectives on the subject. Without them, the project would have been
a non-starter. Finally, a special note of thanks is in order for Lt. Gen. (Rtd.) Asad
Durrani, Ejaz Haider, Dr. Rifaat Hussain and Amb. Humayun Khan, who agreed
to attend multiple roundtable sessions held under the project and to review
our report to ensure that it was representative of the views expressed by
project participants.
11
As the report stands, it attempts to reflect the views of Pakistan’s foreign policy
elite on select dimensions of the evolving situation in Afghanistan. It is not a
consensus report and does not represent, or necessarily conform to, the views of
all participants. It also does not necessarily reflect the views of the authors or the
authors’ respective organizations.
Moeed Yusuf Sherry Rehman

United States Institute of Peace Jinnah Institute
Project Director Project Director
Executive Summary
12
This report outlines the perceptions of Pakistan’s foreign
policy elite – retired civilian and military officials, analysts,
journalists and civil society practitioners – about Pakistan’s
outlook towards the evolving situation in Afghanistan, its
interests and strategy in the impending “end game”, and the
implications of its policies towards Afghanistan for the U.S.-
Pakistan relationship. These perceptions were captured as
part of a project, convened by the U.S. Institute of Peace
(USIP) and Jinnah Institute (JI), Pakistan, aimed at better
comprehending Pakistan’s outlook towards the situation in
Afghanistan. The project drew on the expertise of 53
Pakistani policy elite with established expertise on
Afghanistan and/or with knowledge of the modalities of
policymaking in the United States, and senior politicians.
Pakistan’s Objectives in Afghanistan

In terms of the end game, Pakistani policy elite see their state as having
defined two overriding objectives:
■ The “settlement” inAfghanistan should not lead to a negative spillover such

that it contributes to further instability in Pakistan or causes resentment
among Pakistani Pashtuns; and
■ The government in Kabul should not be antagonistic to Pakistan and should

not allow its territory to be used against Pakistani state interests.
Translated into actionable policy, these umbrella objectives lead Pakistan to
pursue three outcomes:
A degree of stability in Afghanistan: Project participants felt that Pakistan’s

interests are best served by a relatively stable government in Kabul that is not
hostile towards Pakistan. There was across the board realization among the
participants that persistent instability in Afghanistan will have numerous and
predictable consequences for Pakistan that it is ill-prepared to tackle.
An inclusive government in Kabul: Pakistan prefers a negotiated configuration

with adequate Pashtun representation that is recognized by all ethnic and
political stakeholders in Afghanistan. Some of the opinion makers insisted that
given the current situation, a sustainable arrangement would necessarily
require the main Taliban factions – particularly Mullah Omar’s “Quetta Shura”
Taliban and the Haqqani network – to be part of the new political arrangement.
13
Limiting Indian presence to development activities: Pakistani foreign policy elite
accept that India has a role to play in Afghanistan’s economic progress and
prosperity. However, many participants perceived the present Indian
engagement to be going beyond strictly development. They wish to see
greater transparency on Indian actions and objectives.
Views on U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan

Pakistani policy elite involved in the project perceived America’s Afghanistan
strategy to date to be inconsistent and counterproductive to Pakistan’s
interests. The most scathing criticism was targeted at the political component
of the strategy, which is largely seen to be subservient to the military surge.
Not many among the participants were optimistic about the prospects of the
surge. While there was recognition that operations over the past year have
degraded the Taliban’s capacity, virtually no one was convinced that this would
force the main Taliban factions to negotiate on America’s terms.
Pakistani policy elite see the prospects for a successful end game in
Afghanistan as bleak also because of the belief that the United States would
want to retain some long-term security presence in Afghanistan, which will
likely create unease among the Afghan Taliban and countries in the region,
including Pakistan. In terms of Pakistan’s role in the end game, project
participants believed that the United States would continue to push the
Pakistan military to “do more” to stamp out militant sanctuaries while
Washington tries to open up direct channels for talks with the Taliban—with
an eye on reducing reliance on Pakistan’s security establishment in the
political reconciliation process.
Regardless, there was no support for a breakdown of the Pakistan-U.S.

relationship. Project participants, however, felt that greater clarity in U.S. and
Pakistani policies was crucial in order to avoid failure in Afghanistan, to convince
the Taliban of the validity of a power-sharing agreement, and to urge regional
actors (including Pakistan) to stop hedging and to play a more constructive role.
Pakistan’s Afghanistan Policy:
Reacting to the United States
Project participants suggested that Pakistani policy faces a dilemma vis-à-vis

the U.S. On the one hand, U.S. military operations in Afghanistan are believed
to be causing an internal backlash in terms of militancy and deepening the
state-society rift within Pakistan. On the other hand, Pakistani policy elite
appreciate that a premature U.S. troop withdrawal would lead to added
instability in Afghanistan.
Participants felt that from Islamabad’s perspective, the longer U.S. military
operations continue without a clear path for political negotiations, the
tougher it will become for Pakistan to manage its internal security balancing
act. Islamabad therefore favors an immediate, yet patient effort at inclusive
reconciliation.
14
Pakistani policy elite we spoke with tended to believe that a genuine intra-
Afghan dialogue will inevitably allow a significant share of power to the
Pashtuns and thus produce a dispensation in Kabul that is sensitive to
Pakistani interests. Based on their perceptions about the current realities on
the ground in Afghanistan, those tied to this narrative see any attempts to
alienate Pashtuns in general, and the Taliban in particular, as shortsighted.
Nonetheless, the Taliban’s perceived utility for Pakistan does not translate into a
desire for a return to Taliban rule in Afghanistan. A bid to regain lost glory by
Mullah Omar’s Taliban would end up creating conditions in Afghanistan which
run counter to Pakistani objectives, most notably stability. The Pakistani state is
no longer believed to be interested in a return to complete Taliban rule akin to
the 1990s.
Other Impediments to Successful End

Game Negotiations
Project participants saw the following aspects as additional hurdles in
ensuring successful negotiations and a durable settlement in Afghanistan.
Viability of a regional framework: A regional framework which seeks neutrality

and non-interference from countries in the neighborhood received in
principle support during the discussions held under the project. However,
Pakistani elite are unsure of how a regional agreement will be enforced. Some
participants worried that just the entrenched expectation of interference by
others will prompt countries not to honor the arrangement in the first place
as each seeks ‘first mover’s advantage’ in establishing its influence in
Afghanistan.
Taliban’s willingness to negotiate: Pakistani policy elite claim a lack of clarity

about the Afghan Taliban’s willingness to participate in a political
reconciliation process, or even to communicate directly with the United
States beyond a point. Notwithstanding, they feel that the longer meaningful
talks are delayed, the more challenging it will become for the Pakistani
security establishment to pursuade the main Taliban factions to come to the

negotiating table.
Political situation in Afghanistan: Afghan President Hamid Karzai, while

acknowledged as a legitimate leader, is also seen as having lost credibility
among Afghan citizens. This is believed to be generating additional support
for the insurgency and forcing Afghan groups opposed to his government to
delay serious negotiations. A major challenge in this political environment lies
in identifying representatives who could mediate and speak on behalf of
different Afghan stakeholders.
Future of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF): Pakistani policy elite
remain wary of the future role of the ANSF. Participants perceived the bloated 15
size of the Afghan National Army (ANA) to be unsustainable and a threat to
Pakistan’s interests. In terms of ANA’s ethnic composition, the presence of
non-Pashtun officers in key positions was highlighted to suggest that the
makeup is more likely to fuel ethnic hostility than to maintain peace in
Afghanistan.
The Post-Osama Bin Laden Calculus

Because most of our conversations with Pakistani foreign policy elite predated
the May 2, 2011 killing of Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, the
project team subsequently requested participants to reflect on the impact of
this development on the Afghan calculus for Pakistan and the United States.
Most respondents believed that bin Laden’s death had no bearing on

Pakistan’s strategy in Afghanistan. As for the United States, there was a sense
that bin Laden’s departure will make it easier to create a ‘narrative of victory’
against Al Qaida and perhaps, to negotiate directly with Afghan Taliban
leaders. A greater emphasis may be laid on distinguishing Al Qaida from the
Taliban to facilitate the process further.
That said, the growing mutual distrust between Pakistan and the United
States, as exposed during the May 2 U.S. unilateral raid that killed bin Laden,
has raised doubts about the ability of the two countries to collaborate in
attaining a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan. The state of the bilateral
relationship, it was feared, may end up overshadowing the otherwise
considerable overlap on the issue of reconciliation between the American and
Pakistani positions. Some of the respondents disagreed with this view,
arguing that the Obama administration will continue reaching out to elicit
Pakistan’s support in nudging the main Afghan Taliban factions to the
negotiating table.
Introduction
16
On June 22, 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama announced a
withdrawal plan for U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan. The
plan marks a major step in the drawdown of the international
security presence from Afghanistan, leading to the transfer of
primary security responsibilities to the Afghan National
Security Forces (ANSF). The December 2014 deadline for this
transition, now accepted by the troop-contributing countries,
increases the pressure on the international coalition and the
Afghan government to find an amicable solution in
Afghanistan in the interim.
W
hile an internal consensus among Afghans is undoubtedly the
most crucial element of any settlement, regional players also have
an important role to play in facilitating progress towards durable
peace in the so-called “end game” in Afghanistan. Among the regional
players, Pakistan’s role stands out. It is often described as the most influential
actor whose support will be pivotal in ensuring a peaceful Afghanistan.
Despite its importance however, the evolving direction of Pakistan’s
Afghanistan policy is often not well understood in many of the world’s
important capitals. While there is somewhat greater clarity on past actions,
Islamabad’s outlook towards the Afghanistan end game and policy
preferences to that end remain a matter of intense debate. Too often, the
Pakistani view on Afghanistan is taken as a monolith, with little attention
being paid to the many competing narratives that affect official decisions
directly or indirectly. Interestingly, even Pakistani foreign policy elite and
policy makers do not always fully comprehend the multiplicity and range of
opinion on key foreign policy issues within the country.
Given Pakistan’s centrality to the Afghanistan equation and the need to ensure
that Islamabad’s policy complements that of other actors seeking viable peace in
Afghanistan, a better understanding of how Pakistani foreign policy elite
perceive the situation in Afghanistan is needed. For all those seeking to promote
a durable peace settlement in Afghanistan, it is crucial to understand also how

Pakistan’s policy elite view Pakistan’s interests and concerns during the end

game, what they consider realistic options in pursuit of these interests, and what
areas of overlapping versus competing interests exist between Pakistan, the
United States, Afghanistan, and other actors.
This report captures the findings of a project, convened by the United States
Institute of Peace and the Jinnah Institute, Pakistan, aimed at better
comprehending Pakistan’s outlook (as perceived by the country’s foreign policy
community) towards the evolving situation in Afghanistan. The interplay of the
Pakistan-U.S. relationship and the respective interests of the two countries in
Afghanistan was also a key area of focus of the project.
17
Specifically, the project focused on four key themes:
(i) America’s evolving strategy in Afghanistan;
(ii) Pakistan’s short-term and long-term interests in Afghanistan, and how

Pakistan is pursuing these interests;
(iii) In light of America’s strategy and its implications for Afghanistan and the
region, how can Pakistan best pursue its interests going forward; and
(iv) Policies that the United States, Afghanistan, India (and other regional actors)
would have to pursue/accept for Pakistani objectives to be met.
To examine these themes, the project drew on the expertise of a wide spectrum of
Pakistan’s foreign policy elite – retired civilian and military officials, analysts,
journalists, and civil society practitioners – with established expertise on Afghanistan
and/or with knowledge of the modalities of policy making in the United States. These
opinion makers attended roundtable discussions aimed at exploring the themes; a
few were interviewed directly. Senior politicians representing the major political
parties in the country were also interviewed during the project.
The project was conducted in the spring of 2011 and updated after Osama Bin
Laden’s killing on May 2. In total, 53 opinion makers and politicians participated
in the project. They were selected in order to capture opinions from across the
spectrum and to be able to present conclusions that were representative of the
views prevalent among opinion makers in the country. Only participants with
direct expertise – practical policymaking involvement, on-ground experience in
Afghanistan, or an academic understanding of the issue at hand – were invited.
While inevitably, a few influential opinion makers were unable to participate – we
originally invited 70 individuals – the project team is not aware of previous
undertakings on the subject which managed to summarize the views of such a
diverse group of Pakistani foreign policy elite in a systematic manner.
Box 1
Methodology
The project proceeded in two phases. Pakistani foreign policy elite were brought
together in off-the-record roundtable discussions in March 2011. Six roundtables,

involving 39 individuals, were held; four were held in Islamabad, and one each in
Lahore and Peshawar. Each roundtable was restricted to 6-10 individuals to keep
the discussions interactive and manageable. The mix of experts for each
roundtable was carefully selected to ensure some level of diversity (as we
anticipated) of views. We directly interviewed four opinion makers who were
invited but could not attend any of the roundtable discussions.
The second phase of the project entailed off-the-record, one-on-one interviews

with seven politicians representing major political parties of Pakistan.1 The
interviews were meant to solicit perspectives of the political parties on the
18
subject at hand. These were conducted between March and July 2011.
The project directors added an additional component to the project after

Osama bin Laden’s killing on May 2, 2011. Since all the roundtables and most
of the interviews were conducted prior to the incident, we felt a need to
solicit views of participants on the impact of this development on the
Afghanistan calculus. We reached out to all roundtable participants via e-mail
and requested answers to two questions:
(i) How do you think bin Laden’s death will change the U.S. end game in
Afghanistan?
(ii) Will bin Laden’s killing change Pakistan’s strategy vis-à-vis Afghanistan?
We received responses from 17 of the 39 roundtable participants. Their views

are reflected in the post-script to this report.
Methodological robustness was ensured through an innovative project

design. All roundtables were conducted in quick succession to ensure that
the policy environment and realities surrounding the issue remained
constant.2 Also, in order to confirm that the authors were able to capture the
key themes discussed during the project and that the report was
representative of the roundtable discussions, the project team requested
four participants, chosen carefully to ensure a diversity of views among them,
to attend multiple sessions and subsequently review the report for errors.
Between them, they attended all six roundtables.3
The body of this report captures the essence of the viewpoints expressed and
conclusions drawn during the roundtable discussions and interviews with the
foreign policy elite. The findings from the interviews with representatives of the

political parties are encapsulated separately in box 3 in the report. Responses to

questions on the impact of Osama Bin Laden’s killing on the Afghanistan calculus
are reported in the post-script to the report.
The authors of this report have refrained from conducting any independent
analysis or additional research. The report is merely a reproduction of the key
themes and findings that emerged from the discussions. As such, the report can
be considered an objective rendering of a wide spectrum of informed Pakistani
views on the conflict and possible end game in Afghanistan.
To be sure, the authors make no claim that the elite perceptions reflected in the
report are always factually accurate or objective; nor have the authors injected
19
their own views on what this elite outlook means for the evolving situation in
Afghanistan. The report simply lays out these perceptions as views that must be
known and understood before informed, contextually grounded policies can be
devised by stakeholders seeking Pakistan’s cooperation in the Afghanistan end
game. The report is not a consensus document and does not represent the entire
range of views on every issue. In fact, while every effort has been made to
faithfully represent the content of the discussions, owing to the diversity of
opinions expressed, the report cannot claim to have effectively articulated the
opinions of all participants.
Section II of the report discusses elite perceptions of Pakistan’s objectives in

Afghanistan. Section III reflects participants’ views on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.
This is followed by a discussion of how Pakistani opinion makers view their own
country’s policy towards Afghanistan. In section V, we outline participants’ views
on a regional framework for an Afghan settlement. Section VI lists what the policy
elite highlighted as some of the key impediments to successful end game
negotiations. In section VII, we outline the main steps project participants
believed the United States, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other regional actors could
take to contribute to peace in Afghanistan. This is followed by a post-script which
focuses on elite perceptions of the impact of Osama Bin Laden’s death on the
Afghanistan equation.
Pakistan’s Objectives
in Afghanistan:
The Ideal versus the
Achievable
The ideal
20
A distinction ought to be drawn between what Pakistan’s foreign policy elite see
as their country’s long-term vision for relations with Afghanistan and what the
Pakistani state will seek to achieve in the impending end game.
Pakistani foreign policy elite are generally critical of their country’s traditional,
security-centric approach to Afghanistan. The security establishment, which has
dominated the country’s policy throughout, is seen as being overly concerned about
an antagonistic Afghanistan. This fear has led it to interfere in sovereign Afghan affairs
over the years. Especially since the Afghan resistance against Soviet occupation in the
1980s, there has been an urge to micromanage developments within Afghanistan in
a bid to prop up pro-Pakistan governments in Kabul. The Pakistani military has
persistently sought a friendly Afghanistan to avoid a ‘two-front’ situation which
would entail a hostile India to the east and an antagonistic Afghanistan to the west.
Project participants contended that even as the Pakistani state reached out to
seek amenable partners, it approached Afghanistan largely from an ethnic rather
than a political or economic lens. Its policy has therefore focused virtually
entirely on the Pashtun political factions in Afghanistan. For the longest period,
the Pakistani state has believed in a strong feedback loop between Pakistani and
Afghan Pashtuns; the state has been fearful of an ethno-nationalist Pashtun
movement triggered by developments in Afghanistan that are unfavorable to
the Pashtuns in Pakistan. The country’s official policy towards Afghanistan has
been influenced, in no small part, by this fear.
Pakistan’s security-centric approach has caused the state to lose goodwill among
Afghans even though the ethnic Pashtun ties at the people-to-people level have
remained strong. Pakistani experts and political leaders we talked to were
acutely aware of the fact that their country is widely reviled and mistrusted in
Kabul while countries like India are viewed positively. Some policy elite however
argued that the anti-Pakistan sentiment is confined to the northern, non-Pashtun
parts of Afghanistan and that the international media has been unnecessarily
hyper-sensitive to this concern.
Nevertheless, most project participants agreed that Pakistan’s interference in
Afghanistan’s affairs over the past two decades has left many Afghans alienated
and resentful of what they view as Islamabad’s hegemonic tendencies. This

troubles many, especially those who argue that Pakistan’s geographical, ethnic,

historical, and cultural links with Afghanistan gives it an inherent advantage in
terms of ensuring interdependence between the two countries. A less
overbearing approach, project participants felt, would have highlighted
Pakistan’s indispensability while retaining strong goodwill among Afghan
citizens, both Pashtun and non-Pashtun. Support to Islamist forces in
Afghanistan is especially criticized and is blamed for having accentuated
Pakistan’s problems of radicalization within its own society.
Most members of the policy elite included in our discussions held the view that
Pakistan’s long-term interests are best served by expanding the framework of the
bilateral relationship with Afghanistan beyond security to include trade, energy,
21
and reconstruction projects. Rather than seeking influence in Kabul through
groups such as the Taliban alone, Pakistan ought to have pursued enhanced
trade ties and joint investments for leverage. Indeed, the scope and strength of
Pakistan’s current economic and educational ties with Afghanistan is substantial
and often underestimated. The Pakistan-Afghanistan bilateral trade increased
from $169.9 million in 2000-01 to $1.24 billion in 2007-08 and further to
approximately $1.75 billion at present.4 However, much of these ties have
developed without any holistic, visionary state policy to optimize benefits on
Islamabad’s part. Greater attention towards this aspect is seen as critical by
Pakistani policy elite; presently, the informal and societal links dwarf progress at
the interstate level.
A reality check
Notwithstanding what the Pakistani foreign policy elite would have liked their
state to achieve, or what they see as the preferred long-term vision, there is a fair
bit of realism that the end game in Afghanistan does not allow the luxury to chart
an ideal course. It was largely agreed among project participants that achieving
the above-recommended course would require no less than a wholesale
transformation of Pakistan’s traditional thinking vis-à-vis Afghanistan.
Between now and 2014, Islamabad’s positioning in the Afghan reconciliation efforts
will be dictated by the country’s security establishment. And despite the criticism of
a security-centric approach, there is a firm belief among the policy elite that Pakistan
has strong interests and concerns in Afghanistan which the international
community – read the United States – has often ignored over the past decade.
Pakistani policy elite believe that there has been a gradual evolution in the
security establishment’s thinking, hastened in recent years by the fast pace of
change in the situation in Afghanistan. In terms of the end game, Pakistani elite
see their state as having defined two overriding objectives:
■ The ‘settlement’ in
Afghanistan should not lead to a negative spillover such that
it contributes to further instability in Pakistan or causes resentment among
Pakistani Pashtuns; and
■The government in Kabul should not be antagonistic to Pakistan and should

not allow its territory to be used against Pakistani state interests.
Participants believed that translated into actionable policy, these umbrella

objectives lead Pakistan to pursue the following outcomes in the end game in
Afghanistan:
(i) A degree of stability

There is broad recognition among the policy elite of the intrinsic link between
stability (or lack thereof) in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A failure to evolve an
amicable solution to the Afghan conundrum, and the resultant persistence of high
22
levels of instability, will have numerous and predictable consequences for Pakistan:
continuing unrest in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA); a surge in
illegal border crossings leading to another Afghan refugee crisis; a surge in drug
trafficking and weapons smuggling; an upswing in Pashtun nationalism seeking to
support their Afghan brethren in a tussle against non-Pashtuns in Afghanistan; a
reversal of the direction of the insurgency, whereby anti-Pakistan militants seek
sanctuary in the large swaths of misgoverned spaces in Afghanistan; further strains
in the India-Pakistan relationship as both continue to compete for presence in
Afghanistan; and courtesy of this, continued dominance of Pakistan’s security-
centric approach towards Afghanistan. Pakistan’s interests, project participants felt,
are thus best served by a relatively stable government in Kabul that is not hostile
towards Pakistan.
(ii) An inclusive government in Kabul

Pakistani foreign policy elite believe that only a truly inclusive government in
Kabul can usher in an era of relatively efficient and stable governance in
Afghanistan. Most participants defined this as a politically negotiated
configuration with adequate Pashtun representation that is recognized by all
ethnic and political stakeholders in Afghanistan. While far from a consensus,
some opinion makers insisted that given the current situation, a sustainable
arrangement would necessarily require the main Taliban factions – particularly
Mullah Omar’s “Quetta Shura”5 Taliban and the Haqqani network – to be part of
the new political arrangement. Specifically, a decentralized system of
governance is more likely to be sustainable than an overly centralized one. Such
an inclusive dispensation, it is believed, will view the relationship with Islamabad
favorably and be sensitive to Pakistani concerns.
The desire to see an inclusive government in Afghanistan also signals Pakistani

opposition to a return to Taliban rule in the country akin to the 1990s. Most
participants agreed that the Pakistani security establishment and civilian
leadership is no longer seeking to support a return to Taliban rule. The policy
pursued in the second half of the 1990s which saw the Taliban as instruments
of Pakistan’s regional agenda received scathing criticism from policy elite
across the opinion spectrum. Moreover, there is a realization that an Afghan
Taliban6 government would not be acceptable to the Afghan population or to

the international community.
(iii) Limiting Indian presence to development activities

The implications of Indian activities in Afghanistan is a hotly debated issue and
while a consensus was far from forthcoming, there was concern about Indian
activities which could undermine Pakistan’s security and stability. Most
participants agreed that India, as the largest economy in the region, has a role
to play in Afghanistan’s economic progress and prosperity. There is also a fairly
candid admission that the Pakistani security establishment exhibits paranoia
when it comes to Indian activities in Afghanistan. However, many believe that
the present Indian engagement goes beyond strictly development, and thus
23
raises legitimate concerns in Pakistan. From Pakistan’s perspective, this needs to
be addressed as part of the end game settlement in Afghanistan. As the
Pakistani security establishment sees the dynamic, reluctance on the part of the
Afghan government or the United States to address Pakistani misgivings
increases the likelihood of a growing Indian footprint, and in turn, New Delhi’s
greater ability to manipulate the end game negotiations and the post-
settlement dispensation in Kabul.
Views on U.S. Strategy

in Afghanistan
erhaps the greatest convergence in Pakistani views is on the
24
P impression of U.S. policy towards Afghanistan. The policy to date is
largely seen as unclear, inconsistent, and confused. It is also perceived
to be counterproductive not only for Pakistan’s interests, but also for durable
peace in Afghanistan. The strongest criticism is targeted at the political
component of U.S. policy, which is largely seen as subservient to the military
surge. Hardly anyone accepted Washington’s official position that the two
aspects are working in tandem. The Obama administration is aware, Pakistani
elite believe, that an outright military victory in Afghanistan is not possible,
but it is politically compelled to find a face-saver to justify the decade-long
conflict to American taxpayers and the international community. This
compulsion is playing to the advantage of those who remain opposed to
reconciliation talks.
Participants identified several aspects of the U.S.’s Afghanistan policy as

problematic from a Pakistani perspective. Each of these directly or indirectly
stems from what they saw as lack of clarity of U.S. designs in Afghanistan.
Civil-military disconnect
A disconnect between the Obama administration and the U.S. military’s
approach to Afghanistan is blamed for what are seen as contradictory or, as one
participant called it, “perpetually evolving” preferences. Broadly, the civilian
administration is perceived to favor political reconciliation while the Pentagon,
seen as having excessive influence over the Afghanistan-Pakistan security
policy,7 still prioritizes the need to make greater military gains. Some argued
that this divisive thinking prevented the Obama administration’s December
2010 Afghanistan policy review from being an honest evaluation or re-think of
U.S. strategy. This was otherwise a good opportunity to recalibrate the aims
towards more modest ends.
Pakistani policy elite view initiation of a serious, inclusive political

reconciliation process as the most viable means of achieving a sustainable
solution in Afghanistan. During our conversations, many participants
appreciated U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s February 18, 2011 speech at
the Asia Society in which she stated that the United States was open to political
reconciliation with the Taliban in pursuit of an integrated military-civilian-
diplomatic strategy.8 Most, however, were not convinced that there is enough

support in Washington for serious reconciliation efforts to take off just yet.
Pakistani opinion makers feel that electoral pressure in the run-up to the 2012
U.S. presidential elections will lead President Obama to gradually begin
imposing his vision on the military. However, since he is also in search of a
‘narrative of victory’, he will not undercut the military surge prematurely.9 This
inevitable delay in outlining a clear policy dominated by inclusive political
negotiations among Afghans is seen as counterproductive to Pakistani
interests, and to the prospects of peace in Afghanistan.
Finally, there was general skepticism among the participants in terms of U.S.
patience and the domestic public support to pursue a long, drawn-out Afghan
25
reconciliation process once it commences. It was often pointed out that the
United States may be approaching negotiations with a view to meet the
drawdown target of 2014. However, the internal reconciliation will have to
continue much beyond this deadline before political stability can be expected in
Afghanistan. The U.S.’s post-2014 commitment to the process remained unclear
to project participants.
Failure to clearly identify the target of the

military campaign
Pakistani policy elite feel that the United States is failing to define clearly the
principal target of the military surge in Afghanistan. The goal posts have
changed frequently as has the narrative around what the United States is
ultimately after. Is Al Qaida what Washington ultimately wishes to eliminate,
participants wondered? If so, just how many Al Qaida members are left in
Afghanistan? Is the United States pursuing a moving target which is not easily
identifiable and whose total annihilation is likely impossible? Or does the
United States still consider the leadership of the main Taliban factions and other
Al Qaida-affiliated groups to be primary targets as well? Until there is clarity on
these questions, the United States will be unable to determine when it can
consider the mission accomplished.10
Despite President Obama’s pronouncements reflecting a desire to limit the

objectives to Al Qaida, Pakistani policy elite are not convinced that U.S. policy
adequately distinguishes between Al Qaida and Afghan Taliban factions like the
Haqqani network and Mullah Omar’s “Quetta Shura”.11 A sizable number of the
participants believed that the U.S.’s strategy was still conflating the two groups,
and warned against making this mistake. Participants suggested that the
Pakistani state considers the Afghan Taliban political actors and part of a major
ethnic group; silencing the Taliban-led insurgency through military force was
considered to be impossible. In fact, many participants saw excessive use of force
as generating greater sympathy for the Taliban.
Bleak prognosis of the military surge
The question of the efficacy of the military aspect of President Obama’s “surge”
elicited skeptical responses. The understanding of the on-ground situation in

Afghanistan is that the Taliban’s capacity has been degraded in the southern part
of the country where the U.S. military has concentrated over the past year.
However, virtually no one was convinced that this can put an end to the
insurgency or that it can force the main Taliban factions to negotiate on
America’s terms. To substantiate this claim, experts cited the lack of precedence
of such a development in Afghanistan and a belief that the United States is
committing many of the same mistakes the Soviet Union made during the 1980s
(and those who tried to occupy Afghanistan before it) by depending on military
force and powerful, but highly tainted and corrupt strong-men and militias as
partners in Afghanistan.
26
A sizable proportion of the policy elite present in the discussions took issue with
what is perceived to be a shift towards a more heavy handed U.S. military strategy
in Afghanistan under General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in
Afghanistan at the time of the roundtable discussions.12 The aim of killing as many
insurgent fighters as possible and tactics like aerial attacks and night raids are
believed to be counterproductive. The opinion makers argued that the surge has
resulted in the widespread destruction of villages, and has therefore spurred fresh
Taliban recruitment and brought turmoil even to previously peaceful areas. Others
pointed out that the U.S. military is focusing on stabilizing and fortifying urban areas
while neglecting the Afghan countryside. This strategy is considered unsustainable
given the traditional importance of the Afghan countryside in politics and will likely
result in increased insecurity in the wake of U.S. troop withdrawal.
The debate about America’s post-2014

footprint
There was a sense among the participants that the United States would want
to retain some long-term security presence in Afghanistan. Opinions varied on
the U.S. objectives behind this desire. While some were convinced that the
United States views this presence in strategic terms and wants to establish a
physical foothold in the South Asian region,13 others argued that the mandate
in Afghanistan is likely to be limited to ensuring that Afghan territory is not
used for attacks against the United States in the future. For those who agreed
with the latter, the United States would retain its military bases and use these
as launching pads for a counterterrorism-dominated strategy after the 2014
transition. The aim would principally be to hunt down Al Qaida leaders and
other high-value targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, skeptics
considered even this limited agenda to be problematic from a Pakistani
perspective. As they saw it, it would amount to U.S. presence in a relatively
peaceful northern Afghanistan, leaving Pakistan to deal with the fallout from
the country’s turbulent eastern and southern provinces.14
There are also divergent views among Pakistani foreign policy elite on how
public knowledge of America’s desire for a long-term presence in Afghanistan

may impact the political reconciliation process. At the very least, it is viewed as

an additional challenge and is likely to make not only the Afghan Taliban, but
also regional countries like Pakistan, Iran, China, and Russia uneasy.
The Afghan Taliban’s position on foreign troop presence is somewhat contested.

Some participants tended to take the Taliban’s stated position of “no foreign
troops” at face value. They saw no possibility that the major Taliban factions
would accept foreign troop presence as part of the end game settlement.
Therefore, if the United States is unwilling to commit to total withdrawal, the
reconciliation process could be stillborn. Those who held this view also tended to
believe that the opposition to long-term U.S. military presence goes beyond the
Taliban and extends to a number of moderate Afghan groups, both Pashtun and
27
non-Pashtun. Others disagreed however, and argued that the Taliban’s demand
for complete troop withdrawal is a starting position which is aimed more for the
consumption of their own rank and file than as a non-negotiable condition in
talks with the United States. Ultimately, they may accept a plan for phased
withdrawal as long as there is firm commitment that all foreign troops would pull
out at a specified time in the not-so-distant future.
U.S. view of Pakistan’s role in the

reconciliation phase
Uncertainty and skepticism about U.S. policy leads to a sense of nervousness in
Pakistan. The growing mistrust between the United States and Pakistan in the
context of the Afghanistan strategy is front and center of Pakistani thinking.
Hardly anyone among the project participants believed that the United States
would willingly adjust its Afghanistan strategy to incorporate Pakistani concerns.
In fact, many argued that Washington views Pakistan as a nuisance that cannot
be relied upon in the negotiations phase in Afghanistan.
Pakistani policy elite believe that Washington would continue to push the Pakistan
Army to “do more” to stamp out militant sanctuaries in Pakistan while it tries to open
up direct channels for talks with the Taliban – thereby minimizing Pakistan’s role in
the negotiations, or, at the very least, signaling a willingness to explore avenues that
lessen dependence on Pakistan’s security establishment for reconciliation talks.15
Not many participants were convinced that this is a viable strategy; most believed
that it would undermine the prospects for successful reconciliation.
Pakistan’s Afghanistan
Policy: Reacting to the

United States
Lack of clarity in Pakistan’s policy
28
Pakistani opinion makers involved in the project discussions saw their country’s
strategy towards Afghanistan as largely reactionary; it is seen as having responded
to U.S. actions in a manner that ensures continuation of the Pakistan-U.S.
partnership while securing Pakistani national security interests, as defined by the
security establishment. Reservations about the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan have
prevented the Pakistani state from complementing America’s actions outright.
While the experts accepted that this amounts to divergent policies – “double
game” as it is known in Washington – they also highlighted that Pakistan has to
look after its own interests first and foremost. Nonetheless, there is recognition that
Pakistan’s outlook on Afghanistan has been unclear and ambiguous. While
Islamabad has been critical of the lack of clarity in U.S. policy, it has itself failed to
articulate a coherent plan towards Afghanistan that allows for long-term
engagement on multiple levels – political, economic, and security-related.
A dual approach towards the United States

Project participants suggested that Pakistani policy faces a dilemma vis-à-vis the
United States. On the one hand, U.S. military operations in Afghanistan are
believed to be causing a backlash in terms of militancy and deepening the state-
society rift within Pakistan. Militant groups such as the Tehreek-e-Taliban
Pakistan (TTP) are using the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s support
in the fight against terrorism, as justification for attacking Pakistani state
interests. On the other hand, Pakistani foreign policy elite appreciate that a
premature U.S. troop withdrawal would lead to added instability in Afghanistan.
Pakistan has tried to balance these two competing aspects in its policy. It has
continued to provide counterterrorism and strategic (principally, the supply
routes and military bases) support to the United States to ensure that
Washington continues to engage Pakistan as a partner. Moreover, Pakistan’s
support keeps U.S. costs in Afghanistan from becoming prohibitively high, which
could potentially increase political pressure in Washington for an abrupt troop
withdrawal, or short of that, force the U.S. military to prematurely retreat to its
bases in Afghanistan and pursue the counterterrorism-heavy approach amidst
deteriorating security in the country. As explained earlier, neither is seen to be in
Pakistan’s interest.

Simultaneously, Pakistan has refused to succumb to U.S. pressure to
aggressively target the Afghan Taliban and other Pakistan-based groups
operating against U.S. interests from Pakistani territory. Indeed, Pakistani policy
elite are fairly candid in acknowledging the presence of Haqqani network
fighters in North Waziristan and of the “Quetta Shura” Taliban, although the
influence and reach of the latter is believed to be exaggerated by western
accounts. That said, Pakistani policy elite agree that Mullah Omar’s cadres do
not, for the most part, conduct violent operations inside Pakistan and are
therefore not targeted by the Pakistan military.
Box 2
29
Why is Pakistan holding out on the
sanctuaries?
Several reasons were discussed for Pakistan’s refusal to target militant sanctuaries
being used to attack the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) presence
and the Afghan troops. The debate can be summed up as one between lack of
‘capacity’ and lack of ‘will’. While there was agreement that both feature in the
Pakistan military’s decision, views differed on which of these is the primary factor.
■ Those who see the reluctance to target sanctuaries as primarily a “will” issue
argue that the decision stems largely from Pakistan’s concern about being
sidelined in the reconciliation phase in Afghanistan, which could result in a
manipulated process that works to the advantage of elements hostile
towards Islamabad. For instance, the main Taliban factions may be left out, or
certain individuals within them may be bought out to accept an outcome
unfavorable to the Pashtuns.
Pakistani intelligence links with the Afghan Taliban and the presence of these
groups on Pakistani soil are seen as leverage points which more or less
guarantee Islamabad’s involvement in the end game. Presence of these
groups in the post-transition power-sharing arrangement in Kabul also
provides Pakistan some sense of security in that they will not allow Kabul to
adopt an overtly anti-Pakistan policy.
■ A number of strong voices disagreed with this outlook. They argued that the
“will” narrative reflects the traditional thinking of the Pakistani security
establishment, which is no longer valid. They emphasized the need to
acknowledge an evolution, however slow, in the security establishment’s
thinking. Those who support this narrative cite the less-than-harmonious
relationship, induced as it was by Pakistan’s post-9/11 offer of support to the
U.S. mission in Afghanistan, between the main Taliban factions, including their
leadership, and the Pakistani intelligence outfit, the Inter Services Intelligence
(ISI). No longer does the ISI hold the kind of sway over the Taliban groups as it
once did. Some take it one step further by contending that there is a significant
amount of distrust between the Afghan Taliban and the ISI which will manifest
itself once the Taliban’s compulsion to use Pakistani territory disappears.
Therefore, while the Taliban may still be the friendliest option for Pakistan,
there is little to say that they would be willing to do Pakistan’s bidding. We were
also reminded that even in the 1990s, the Pakistani state’s relations with the
Mullah Omar-led Afghanistan were seldom without problems.
This narrative views the reluctance of the Pakistani military to target the
sanctuaries as principally a capacity issue. The Pakistan Army does not have
the capacity to open up new battlefronts given that it remains overstretched
30
with its commitments against anti-Pakistan militant outfits. An incomplete or
ineffective military campaign against the sanctuaries could lead Afghan
insurgent groups, especially the Haqqani network, to back groups like the
TTP against the Pakistani state. Those wedded to this argument doubt the
Pakistan military’s ability to manage such an onslaught. They believe a
massive backlash in Pakistan’s heartland to be inevitable. The possibility of
fresh Pashtun resentment in FATA and adjacent areas in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
(KPK) province is also not lost on these strategic thinkers.
Those favoring the “capacity” narrative also seek to correct the misperception that
the Pakistani security establishment is unaware of the growing linkages between
the Afghan Taliban and Pakistani militant groups. However, they argue that while
the current links remain limited, it is precisely the fear of these growing into full-
blown operational cooperation and coordination that prevents the Pakistani
state from targeting Afghan insurgent groups on its soil. Moreover, the security
establishment is able to take advantage of the present linkages between these
groups from time to time by persuading the Afghan Taliban to pressure the TTP
and other North Waziristan-based militants to curtail their activities.
Support for political reconciliation in

Afghanistan: Here and now
Pakistani foreign policy elite deem the strategy to support the U.S. presence in
Afghanistan on the one hand, and resist pressure to target militant sanctuaries on
the other, as costly in terms of the backlash Pakistan is facing from within. Project
participants believed that from Islamabad’s perspective, the longer U.S. military
operations continue without a clear path for political negotiations, the tougher it
will get for Pakistan to manage its internal security balancing act. Pakistan therefore
favors an immediate, yet patient effort at inclusive reconciliation in Afghanistan.
Pakistani policy elite admitted that little progress will be made until a
fundamental disconnect between Pakistani and American perceptions is
addressed: most Pakistani decision makers believe that large-scale military
operations against militant sanctuaries in FATA are not in their national security

interest. As long as the military views the situation as a stark choice between

ensuring security within Pakistan and taking actions to aid the U.S. mission in
Afghanistan, a divergence of policy, and indeed a high level of mistrust will
remain. Project participants were also of the view that Pakistan will not cease a
certain level of interference in Afghanistan until a credible reconciliation process
takes off. There was a virtual consensus though that this challenge can only be
addressed within the framework of well-articulated, long-term Afghan policies
by Washington and Islamabad.
Indeed, the need for U.S. and Pakistani positions to converge on the end game in
Afghanistan is well understood. There was a belief among the participants that
what Pakistan is seeking in Afghanistan is not necessarily opposed to U.S.
31
interests; there is considerable overlap which ought to be explored rather than
allowing bilateral mistrust to overshadow the opportunity. Pakistan hopes that
the United States would pursue reconciliation talks more proactively and sincerely
in the coming months, but do so through an Afghan-led process that also takes
regional actors into confidence. An inclusive government in Kabul, participants
agreed, would inevitably emerge from an Afghan-led reconciliation effort which
was genuinely representative and not manipulated by any external actor.
Pakistani foreign policy elite however tend to draw a distinction between

manipulation of an intra-Afghan process and facilitation by external parties. They
see their country as an important and potentially effective facilitator which could
nudge the main Taliban insurgent groups to join and approach the negotiations
process sincerely. That said, there was a fair bit of skepticism regarding the ability
of outside parties – Pakistan and the United States included – to resist the
temptation of meddling in the negotiations process rather than simply
facilitating the presence of all major Afghan factions on the table. The concern
about the others’ meddling, most participants feared, would in turn incentivize
each external actor to interfere itself, thereby undermining the potential for an
intra-Afghan settlement.
To be sure, the discussions about the ‘inclusiveness’ of the reconciliation process and
the post-2014 transition government in Kabul took the presence of the main Taliban
factions in the framework for granted. Rather interestingly, while there was frank
admission that the Pakistani security establishment sees the Taliban’s involvement
in reconciliation in Pakistan’s interest, and thus will insist on it, project participants
sought to clarify that this should not be seen as Pakistan’s ploy to artificially impose
its preferred outcome. Instead, they argued that Islamabad believes that a genuinely
intra-Afghan dialogue will naturally produce an outcome which would provide the
Taliban some role in the power-sharing arrangement. Based on their perceptions
about the current realities on the ground in Afghanistan, members of the Pakistani
elite tied to this narrative saw any attempts to alienate Pashtuns in general, and the
Taliban in particular as shortsighted and impractical.
Project participants believed that the Afghan Taliban’s presence in the
reconciliation phase and their acceptance of the dialogue process would satisfy
a number of Pakistani interests. For one, the on-ground realities and the Taliban’s
strength as an insurgent group imply that any attempt to isolate them would
prolong the insurgency, and instability in Afghanistan. In this regard, Pakistan’s

support for their role in Afghanistan’s future political set-up is believed to make
it a force for stability.
Moreover, even if the main Taliban factions do not completely trust the Pakistani
security establishment, they are not seen as groups who would actively
undermine the Pakistani state’s interests either. Their ethnic ties to Pakistan and
long-standing relationships with Pashtun-centric right-wing Pakistani political
parties will militate against this outcome. They may however, seek to chart a
course that is less dependent on Pakistan than during the 1990s, which
according to some participants, ought to be considered a blessing in disguise
32
for Pakistan.16 Next, the Taliban’s acceptance of a negotiated settlement, or at
the very minimum, sufficient progress in talks for them to be comfortable with
ceasing violence, would lead to voluntary relocation from sanctuaries in
Pakistan. Finally, a truly inclusive political dispensation, most among the project
participants believed, will eliminate the possibility of an overtly pro-India
dispensation or one that is outright insensitive to Pakistani concerns.
A reconciliation process that leaves out the Taliban, on the other hand, may
confirm the Pakistani security establishment’s worst fears. It would be seen as an
effort to sideline Pakistan’s importance and some in the establishment may even
view it as an effort to install an anti-Pakistan – read pro-India – political
dispensation in Afghanistan. The Taliban leadership may see no reason to
relocate to Afghanistan and will continue to keep the pot boiling; Pakistan will
remain under pressure to “do more” and will be portrayed negatively in the
international media if it resists. Pakistani Pashtuns would also be resentful of the
outcome and the TTP may use this sentiment to increase recruitment and justify
continued attacks against the Pakistani state.
It is important to note that even as project participants acknowledged that at

present, the Taliban may be the friendliest option for Pakistan, a number of
them were quick to underscore that this is a result of the state’s myopic
approach towards Afghanistan over the years. It is Islamabad’s failure to
broaden its contacts with other moderate Pashtun, and even more so the
non-Pashtun groups, that has forced Pakistan to tolerate the Taliban. The
policy has come at significant cost in terms of international condemnation
and mistrust with much of the western world. It has also led to greater
exposure of the Pakistani society to the Taliban’s radical ideological outlook
than would have been possible otherwise. There is a strong feeling of being
‘stuck’ with the Taliban; the state is ‘forced’ to fall back on the Taliban groups
as its principal leverage.
The flip side: Avoiding a return to the 1990s
While some opinion makers remained unconvinced, for most, the Taliban’s

perceived utility for Pakistan does not translate into a desire for a return to

Taliban rule in Afghanistan. The Pakistani policy of the 1990s is believed to have
lost support even in the strategic establishment, not least because of the
realization that Afghan citizens and the international community would not
accept any such effort. Moreover, a bid to regain lost glory by Mullah Omar’s
Taliban would end up creating conditions in Afghanistan which run counter to
Pakistani objectives, most notably stability.
Pakistani policy elite recognize that no elements within the current political set-
up in Afghanistan will willingly cede power to the Afghan Taliban. Large pockets
of Afghan society, especially in the north, have seen the benefits of international
presence over the past decade and will not accept wholesale regression to the
33
1990s. Pakistani foreign policy elite are cognizant that the Taliban’s obscurantist,
extremist views have made them extremely unpopular in Afghanistan. They are
aware that what seems to be support for the Taliban in Afghanistan at present
stems from the frustration and resentment towards the failure of effective
governance by the Karzai regime. While this frustration may generate support for
the insurgency as the only means to push back against the status quo,
participants felt that it would be a mistake for the Pakistani state to see it as a
desire among the Afghans to return to Taliban rule.
Experts involved in the discussions argued that any attempt by the Afghan
Taliban to impose their rule will be met with fierce resistance from non-Pashtun
and moderate Pashtun groups. The non-Pashtuns will now be able to draw on
their improved organization, bolstered capacity, and access to sophisticated
weaponry through the ANSF17 to prevent such a development. Afghan Taliban,
on their part, do not have the military capacity to take on this opposition on their
own. In fact, it was often pointed out that the Taliban are no longer a monolithic
entity and the various factions may well have clashing preferences in terms of the
end game and beyond. In essence, a serious attempt to return the Taliban to rule
Kabul on their own could spark widespread insecurity, or even outright civil war,
in Afghanistan.
Participants referred to Pakistan’s attempts in recent years to reach out to more

moderate Pashtun factions in Afghanistan and to forge better links with the
Karzai government as evidence of the desire to broaden the scope of Pakistani
contacts across the Durand Line. Islamabad’s preliminary efforts to quietly reach
out to former members of the Northern Alliance, some of them highly critical of
Pakistan, were also seen favorably by most participants.
The Pakistani state’s sympathetic view towards the Afghan Taliban and yet its
averseness to a return to the 1990s raises an interesting question about just how
much support the state apparatus is extending to the main Taliban factions. There
was a lively and inconclusive debate on this issue among the policy elite. Some
argued that the military’s policy is to ‘tolerate’ Taliban presence and that the ISI
does not actively train or materially support the Afghan Taliban factions present
on Pakistani soil. Others however held the view that while this may generally be
true, from time to time the ISI extends material support or directs certain actions.
Yet others – this was the least common view – went a step further to state that
they did not rule out the possibility that the ISI has continued to equip and
actively fund some of the Afghan insurgent factions over the past decade.
Box 3
The Afghan conundrum from the
perspective of Pakistan’s political parties*
Representatives of the major political parties in Pakistan echoed much of the
34
concerns and opportunities highlighted by the country’s foreign policy elite.
While there are a number of consensus points on which parties from across
the political spectrum broadly agree, there is also a discernible difference in
outlook between right and left wing parties on some issues.
Views on Pakistan’s objectives in Afghanistan underscore the criticality of

ensuring positive ties with Afghanistan. The fact that the stability of both
countries is interdependent is recognized, as is the fact that the present
situation in Afghanistan bodes ill for Pakistan. There is a general sense that
Pakistan should approach the relationship with Afghanistan more holistically.
A more multi-layered engagement, built around common and stable
economic goals and capacity building of Afghanistan’s governance and
security sectors should be pursued. The military’s predominance over the
Afghan policy elicits significant criticism and most parties, especially those
left-of-center, desire a re-balancing of geo-strategic interests towards goals
that privilege gains from economic interdependence.
In terms of the evolving end game in Afghanistan, Washington is seen as

part of the problem to a large extent. America’s over-reliance on military
force in Afghanistan is considered to be a major flaw, one that is
undermining the prospects of successful reconciliation. A more aggressive
political approach is believed to be essential for durable peace in the
country. There is a sense that the military surge has weakened the Taliban
but that rather than pushing further in pursuit of the elusive goal of ‘victory’,
the present U.S. advantage should be used to initiate serious dialogue with
all Afghan factions.
The impact of Washington’s troop presence in Afghanistan is a matter of

some debate. Most see military presence leading up to a political transition
as essential to avoid a further deterioration of Afghanistan’s security.
However, a long-term international security presence is not seen nearly as
favorably. The right-of-center parties remain wary of America’s long-term
interests and intentions for the region and remain opposed to permanent

military bases or a sizable force post-2014.

Political parties profess strong support for a regional framework to ensure
sustainable peace in Afghanistan. Views on how a regional framework would
be developed and which countries would play the central role are not always
fully thought out. While most parties would like to see an approach led by the
regional states with involvement from the United States, others argue that
the United States would inevitably want to dictate the process. In general
however, the idea – the practicality is debatable – of Pakistan playing a
pivotal role in bringing together countries like Iran, Turkey, and China to
consolidate their efforts to push for reconciliation attracts Pakistani political
leaders. Most still acknowledge though that India will have to be included as
35
a legitimate stakeholder, not least because U.S. and Indian interests align
closely in Afghanistan; Washington would want to see India’s interests
protected to some extent. Pakistan’s moves to reach out directly to Kabul and
to other regional actors are seen positively; this could tilt the equation back
in Pakistan’s favor to some extent.
On India’s role in Afghanistan, there is sharp divergence of opinion. The left-

of-center parties are of the view that Pakistan’s Afghanistan calculus should
not be dictated by a phobia of malign Indian designs. While there is little
agreement even among these parties on how to incorporate Indian presence
in Pakistan’s calculus, they do not see India’s role as a major impediment in
ensuring peace in Afghanistan on terms that safeguard Pakistan’s interests.
The traditionally right-of-center parties however, do view an Indian presence
in Afghanistan as worrisome. India is seen as using Afghanistan to further its
strategic goals in South Asia, which are perceived to be contrary to Pakistan’s.
According to this narrative, Indian clout in Kabul is inversely proportional to
Pakistan’s ability to ensure a friendly neighbor. Therefore, limiting India’s
presence to purely development objectives is seen as a priority.
* Based on interviews with members of seven major political parties:

Khurshid Ahmad (Jama’at-e-Islami); Ahsan Iqbal (Pakistan Muslim League-N);
Malik Amad Khan (Pakistan Peoples Party); Afrasiab Khattak (Awami National
Party); Maulana Atta-ur-Rehman (Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam-F), Waseem Sajjad
(Pakistan Muslim League -Q); Farooq Sattar (Muttahida Qaumi Movement).
Regional diplomacy
Project participants believed that skepticism about U.S. policy has also led the
Pakistani official enclave to ‘hedge’ at a different level. Much like the rest of the
region, Pakistan is also exploring “what if” scenarios: what if the United States
continues to remain incoherent in its outlook?
A parallel track aimed at energizing regional diplomacy even as the United States
struggles to better define its future approach has been initiated. The aim: to forge
an understanding on how reconciliation could best be entertained by regional
countries. The strategy is seen not as much a means to sideline the United States
– hardly anyone saw this as wise or even possible – but to signal that regional
actors need to (and can) generate a momentum of their own to a certain extent.
Pakistan’s efforts to reach out to Afghan President Hamid Karzai and recent
36
conciliatory overtures between the two sides were seen as positive
developments that need to be continued. In the same vein, high-level Pakistani
visits to Central Asian republics18 and visits to China and Russia19 (upcoming at the
time of the roundtables) were welcomed as means to better understand how
regional parties are approaching the issue and what overlaps and differences
exist in their respective positions. A greater Chinese role had special resonance
among most observers, although there was recognition of the tensions overtures
towards China create vis-à-vis the United States. An overly aggressive approach
towards Beijing was opposed for the fear of worrying Washington and
prompting it to actively seek to limit Islamabad’s access to Kabul in response.
A Regional Framework: Views on
Neutrality and Non-interference
in Afghanistan as a Viable Option
regional framework which seeks neutrality and non-interference from
A countries in the neighborhood was often underscored during our

conversations as a key ingredient of any plan aimed at achieving future
Afghan stability. There was support for the idea in principle; normatively, the
37
need both to pledge non-interference in Afghanistan’s affairs and a region-wide

agreement on the same was recognized. Some members of the roundtable
discussion groups went further to state that an absence of a regional
understanding would inevitably prompt neighbors, including Pakistan, to carve
out their own spheres of influence in Afghanistan. This could quickly revert to a
proxy war situation whereby Pakistan, Iran, India and other regional players
compete with each other, to Afghanistan’s detriment.
That said, there was also a sense that any understanding of “neutrality” in the
Afghan context cannot ignore the varying interests and linkages different
regional actors have with the country. Pakistan stands to gain or lose most from
developments in Afghanistan by virtue of its geographical location and societal
linkages. Pakistan’s concerns can therefore not be weighted equally to those of
other, one-step-removed parties. By the same token, participants believed that
Pakistan’s proximity and ethnic ties will naturally allow it greater interaction and
influence over Afghanistan, but this ought not to be conflated with active efforts
at interference, which Pakistan has admittedly been guilty of in the past.
If done right, Pakistani policy elite believe that the approach can produce
substantial peace and development dividends for the region. In terms of foreign
policies, a successful political reconciliation process in Afghanistan couched
within a regional framework could potentially offer Pakistan significant
breakthroughs. Pakistan and India could cooperate economically and politically in
Afghanistan, thereby helping to normalize one aspect of their relationship.
Conversely, a breakdown of a regional bid could quickly lead to a proxy situation
between the two sides. There will be potential gains in the Pakistan-Iran
relationship as well. Project participants believed that Iran and Pakistan are
presently competing for political influence in Afghanistan. Iranian support for
Hazaras and Tajiks is limiting Pakistan’s ability to reach out to non-Pashtun groups.
Moreover, some participants feared that Iran’s involvement in Afghanistan could
stoke sectarian tensions within Pakistan, as Islamabad, unlike Tehran, is not
engaging Shi’a groups in Afghanistan successfully. A regionally-backed resolution
to the Afghan conflict, the policy elite felt, could eliminate this competition to a
great extent.
In terms of development benefits, Afghanistan’s emerging markets and energy

resources and the transit corridor through Afghanistan were repeatedly
highlighted as high potential avenues, but ones that can only materialize if a
successful end game settlement brings stability to Afghanistan. Countries may
still compete but in such a transformed scenario the competition would be
commercial rather than security-dominated. For instance, the need for Pakistan
to take advantage of its location to become a transit hub for energy inflows from
Central Asia was noted. Also, China’s growing economic interests in Afghanistan
are seen positively in Pakistan. Project participants tended to see the warmth of
the Sino-Pakistan relationship as an advantage in seeking joint investments and
38
placement for Pakistani labor.
The normative appeal and understanding of potential gains aside, when asked
whether the regional approach is likely to work out in reality, Pakistani policy
elite came across as broadly skeptical. For one, there were few, if any, who
believed that countries like the United States would be truly neutral in creating a
regional framework. The U.S.’s long-term interests and tensions with countries
like Iran would force it to seek considerable influence over Afghanistan’s
behavior. Moreover, a sense of discrimination prevails in Pakistan when it comes
to the India-Pakistan equation vis-à-vis the United States. In the view of most of
our project participants, Washington is more likely to favor India in the Afghan
context, not least because the interests of the two countries align more neatly.
Box 4
The power to spoil: Pakistan’s concerns about
Indian presence in Afghanistan
Indian presence in Afghanistan was presented as Pakistan’s single biggest
concern when it comes to accepting a regional framework of non-
interference. Project participants explained the Pakistani state’s fears that
expanding Indian influence over a primarily non-Pashtun government in
Kabul could lead the latter to be increasingly hostile towards Islamabad.
Pakistani foreign policy elite are cognizant that their state must reconcile
with the prospect of a long-term Indian development presence in
Afghanistan. However, in return, Pakistan seeks assurances from New
Delhi, Kabul, Washington, and the international community that India’s
interests in Afghanistan are of an economic, rather than strategic or
political nature. The potential repercussions of leaving Pakistan’s concerns
vis-à-vis India unaddressed is not lost on the policy elite: they believe that
Pakistan’s strategic establishment is fully aware that their country’s

geographical location gives them an unmatched advantage in the

eventuality that they need to compete with Indian strategic presence in a
subversive manner.
Current Indian activity patterns worry Pakistani policy elite. The Indian desire
to train parts of the ANSF, the presence of the Border Roads Organization,
which is partly staffed by Indian Army officers, as a road construction
contractor in Afghanistan, and the location of a number of major Indian
development projects in relatively close proximity to the Pakistani border
raises Pakistani sensitivities. The international community’s reluctance to
nudge India to be more forthcoming on the issue was also raised frequently
during the discussions; it is seen as being consistent with the overall
39
discriminatory treatment towards Pakistan. Indeed, the India question
continues to be seen in the context of Indian encirclement by Pakistani
opinion makers. Washington’s decision to isolate the India-Pakistan equation
from U.S.-“Af-Pak” ties is seen as evidence of America’s decisive tilt towards
India. Some from among the policy elite take seriously the notion that India’s
Afghanistan presence is part of a regional strategy to counter China, and in
that sense, it complements long-term U.S. interests in the region. For this
cohort, Indian presence in Afghanistan will remain a major sticking point in
the Pakistan-U.S. bilateral relationship even after 2014.
Second, and more discernible, participants were unsure on how a regional

agreement would be enforced. Can any government or international body be
tasked and trusted to guarantee non-interference? What mechanism would
determine whether or if regional actors transgress, or who does so first? The
Afghan state itself is seen as too weak and divided to be able to deter
undesired interference. The long history of outside interference in Afghan
affairs also does not generate confidence in the viability of such a regional
understanding. Some participants worried that just the entrenched
expectation of interference by others – as opposed to actual violation of the
understanding by any party – will lead countries not to honor the arrangement
in the first place. Each will seek a ‘first-mover’s advantage’ in establishing its
influence in Afghanistan. This is especially true given that regional conflicts
remain active and that the foreign policies of key actors like Pakistan, India, and
Iran remain competitive to varying degrees.
Other Impediments
to Successful End Game

Negotiations
.S. policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistani skepticism about the
40
U viability of a broad regional framework have already been highlighted as

major impediments to successful reconciliation in Afghanistan. Project
participants also pointed to other hurdles in ensuring successful negotiations
and the transition to a durable settlement in Afghanistan. These cast further
doubt in the Pakistani mind over prospects of the success of the U.S. mission in
the country, and in turn, make the Pakistani state even less keen to conform to
Washington’s desires.
Political situation in Afghanistan

President Karzai, while recognized as a legitimate ruler, is increasingly seen as
corrupt and ineffective. Some among the project participants even saw him as a
liability for America’s Afghanistan strategy, arguing that his loss of credibility is
generating additional support for the insurgency and forcing Afghan groups
opposed to his government to delay meaningful talks. Some participants also
saw the present political government in Kabul as being compromised due to its
close contacts with lobbies of status quo beneficiaries – those who have gained
most from foreign assistance, reconstruction contracts, and lawlessness. These
are the people who cashed in on the perverse incentives set up by the flow of
international assistance and flawed aid utilization policies of international actors;
they are the very vested interests that the international community sought to
hold accountable but ended up empowering beyond control.
According to the Pakistani policy elite, a major challenge in this political

environment lies in identifying representatives who could mediate and speak on
behalf of different Afghan stakeholders. The Karzai regime will want to be seen as
representing all Afghan factions in talks with the Taliban. This however, is unlikely
to be acceptable to a number of political groupings. Even the High Peace Council
was described by many participants as ineffective and lacking credibility and
inclusiveness. While its members include former Taliban or those sympathetic to
them, these individuals are no longer believed to be acceptable the Afghan
Taliban leadership as interlocutors.
Looking ahead, participants suggested that the U.S. role will be important in
nudging the Karzai regime to enhance its legitimacy by becoming more
transparent, accountable, and effective in governance. By the same token, the

United States will have to ensure that status quo beneficiaries are not allowed to

hijack the reconciliation process. Under the present circumstances, Pakistani
policy elite contend that the Karzai government cannot be expected to establish
truly inclusive parameters for reconciliation in Afghanistan.
Taliban’s willingness to negotiate

Setting the parameters for reconciliation talks and ensuring sincere participation
from all Afghan groups is not a problem limited to the mainstream outfits. The
Afghan Taliban’s negotiating behavior and their desired role in the post-
transition Afghanistan remains an even bigger question mark.
41
Pakistani policy elite dismiss the idea that the Pakistani security establishment can
force the Taliban’s hand into accepting specific U.S. demands. At best, it can get the
major Taliban factions to the negotiating table. Even there, Pakistani opinion makers
claim lack of clarity about the Afghan Taliban’s willingness to participate in a political
reconciliation process, or even to communicate directly with the United States
beyond a point. This confusion is attributed to the group’s evolving composition
and ideological and political outlook. However, there was considerable agreement
among participants that the Taliban are no longer a monolithic entity and that one
should expect different, even divergent, approaches to the reconciliation process
from within Taliban ranks. Different Taliban factions could lay down their own sets of
conditions in the reconciliation process.
There are a number of specific aspects which lack clarity: what is the precise
nature of the links of the various Afghan Taliban factions with Al Qaida? What will
it take for them to divorce all links? What are Afghan Taliban’s current ideological
ambitions: is the group looking to impose its hard-line views on the Afghan
public; or has it revised its opinion on various socio-political matters such as girls’
schooling? Just how sincere will Taliban factions be during talks is not entirely
clear either: will they use the talks to secure the exit of foreign troops and then
seek to re-launch a violent campaign to neutralize opposing Afghans; or will they
settle for a power-sharing arrangement? Pakistani policy elite opinion is divided,
although there was broad agreement that definitive answers will not be
forthcoming until serious talks actually commence with the Taliban.
Regardless, participants warned against envisioning reconciliation talks with the

Taliban as smooth and swift. They see reconciliation as necessarily being a long,
drawn-out process with many twists and turns, and with no guarantee of success.
However, it is a commonly held view that negotiations will only succeed if
Afghan stakeholders, the United States, and the Taliban remain open to
engagement, do not impose rigid preconditions unacceptable to the adversary,
and refrain from manipulating the process to mould outcomes. Notwithstanding,
in line with the desire to see a reconciliation process commence urgently,
Pakistani policy elite feel that the longer inclusive talks are delayed, the more
challenging it will become to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table (implicit
here is the pervasive belief that the military surge will not be able to tilt the
balance decisively towards the United States).

Afghanistan’s fragile economy

Afghanistan’s post-end game stability is intrinsically linked to the country’s
economy and its ability to generate revenues. Pakistani elite see the bulk of
the current economic infrastructure as a consequence of an inflated war
economy and international support. In 2009-10, more than 70 percent of the
Afghan budget came from foreign sources. And while Afghanistan had an
$11.4 billion economy in 2010, a $4.4 billion segment was attributed to
services dominated by trade, transport, and government support –
agriculture amounted to $3.3 billion, and mining only to $52 million, or one
42
percent of the overall size of the economy.20
As such, while the improvements in the Afghan economy and infrastructure as a

result of the U.S.-led reconstruction efforts post-9/11 are recognized by Pakistani
foreign policy elite, the real gains are not seen to be commensurate with the
claims the international community has made during its decade-long presence
in Afghanistan. The most skeptical among our participants pointed to deep-
rooted structural anomalies in the Afghan economy, some of which have,
according to them, been exacerbated in the past decade even as the macro-
economy has continued to improve. Moreover, the Afghan government’s
revenue collection capacity is seen as modest, corruption levels high, job
creation remaining dependent on external financing, and public infrastructure
projects much too slow to take off. President Hamid Karzai’s lack of credibility is
seen as an additional impediment in ensuring good governance.
The international community would have to continue substantial monetary

support for years after the 2014 transition to avoid an economic collapse in
Afghanistan. While most participants expected such support to continue, some
remained skeptical given the economic conditions in many of the donor
countries and the increasing number of western voices calling for a cutback on
the commitment in Afghanistan. Regardless, the perfect storm from Pakistan’s
vantage is a collapse of the Afghan economy once the international troops have
pulled out. Not only would Pakistan’s own economic investments in the country
be jeopardized, but the country would be faced with a fresh influx of Afghans
escaping renewed violence and seeking livelihood opportunities.
Such a possibility brings back the bitter memory of the 1980s for Pakistanis when
their country had to housed over three million Afghan refugees, with attendant
affects on Pakistan’s economy, society, and law and order. This time round,
Pakistan’s own internal turbulence and weak economy leaves it ill-prepared to
absorb a new refugee spillover and the possibility of increased drug trafficking
and weapons inflow. Some participants pointed to already increasing tensions
between Pakistanis and Afghan nationals present on Pakistani soil. Afghans have
begun to face discrimination in recent years, partly as a reaction to the anti-
Pakistan sentiment in Afghanistan. Moreover, there are repeated allegations of

involvement of Afghans in criminal and smuggling gangs, which further

stereotypes their presence in Pakistan.
The future of the Afghan

National Security Forces
Pakistani foreign policy elite remain wary of the future role of the ANSF. Few
participants expected the ANSF to be ready to become the principal custodians
of Afghanistan’s security by the 2014 transition. The improvement in their
performance was acknowledged but it is considered insufficient to prevent
Afghanistan from regressing into an anarchic state, should political reconciliation
43
fail, or unravel. Former Pakistani military officials included in our discussions were
particularly skeptical. They pointed to the absence of senior officers with any
noteworthy track records in the ANSF, unstable ranks of the forces, and the
disadvantages of operating without an air force for the Afghan National Army
(ANA) as structural problems that are unlikely to be addressed satisfactorily in the
medium term. Moreover, Pakistani policy elite perceive ANSF’s bloated size to be
both, unsustainable given Afghanistan’s meager resources and a threat to
Pakistani interests. Participants feared that absent organized demobilization, any
efforts to prune the forces may lead to resentment among the ranks.
The ethnic composition of the ANSF was also brought up frequently. The claim
that the forces are ethnically balanced was rejected for the most part and the
presence of non-Pashtun officers in key positions was highlighted to suggest
that the makeup is more likely to fuel ethnic hostility than to maintain peace in
the country. The Pashtuns in Pakistan, and some argued even Afghanistan, have
begun to see the ANA as an anti-Pashtun force. While there are varying opinions
on the future trajectory of the ANSF, a sizable proportion of the participants
believed that the forces may split up along ethnic lines and their rank and file
could feature on opposite sides of a fresh civil war, this time with an abundant
supply of highly sophisticated weapons. The spillover into Pakistan, and indeed,
involvement of elements from Pakistan’s Pashtun belt in the Afghan turmoil
would then destabilize Pakistan further.
Moving Ahead: Key
Countries and their

Role in Promoting Peace

in Afghanistan
44
hile participants were not asked for specific recommendations on the
W way forward per se, they did spend some time examining steps (from
a Pakistani perspective) that the principal regional actors would have
to take to stabilize Afghanistan. The main observations made by participants (by
country), not all encompassing by any means, included:
Afghanistan
(i) While President Karzai is still seen as the best available choice to work with in
Afghanistan, his regime’s dwindling credibility in the eyes of Afghan citizens is
considered to be a major problem and one that he and his team must work to
rectify. Only then will they be able to win the trust of Afghan factions that have to
be brought on board for a successful political reconciliation process.
(ii) The Afghan government needs to identify representatives who can mediate on
behalf of and across all ethnic and political groups in Afghanistan. President Karzai
will have to appoint credible representatives beyond the High Peace Council to
work with the Afghan Taliban as well as members of the Afghan civil society.
Various Afghan political groups also need to articulate their preferred framework
for an Afghan-led reconciliation process.
(iii) The Afghan Constitution should be used as a basis to develop a framework for
political reconciliation. However, an unconditional acceptance of the current text
should not be held out as a precondition for a negotiated settlement with the
Taliban. Clauses within the constitution should remain negotiable through an
internal process that seeks the consent of all Afghan stakeholders.
(iv) Afghanistan must focus on developing the capacity and ethnic diversity of
the ANSF. The officer cadre of the ANA that wields much of the power must be
more representative, with larger Pashtun presence. Moreover, the numerical
strength of the ANA should be rationalized at levels that will be sustainable after
the 2014 transition.
(v) The Afghan government and business elite have to seek ways to make the
Afghan economy sustainable without the present levels of foreign monetary
inflows. Notwithstanding, the international community, on its part, should
continue supporting the economy well beyond 2014.

United States
(i) From Pakistan’s perspective, participants felt that the United States has to
articulate a coherent Afghan strategy, particularly with regard to the impending
political reconciliation process. Greater clarity on the political aspect of the
strategy could help avoid failure in Afghanistan, convince the Taliban of the
validity of a power-sharing agreement, and urge Pakistan and other regional
actors to stop hedging and play a more constructive role.
(ii) Washington’s policy is viewed as opaque; more transparency is deemed

beneficial in generating trust among regional partners. Pakistan would like
Washington to be forthcoming on the role it envisions for Islamabad and
45
guarantee that attempts will not be made to sideline it.
(iii) There is a need to remain open to negotiating with all relevant actors.
Rejecting talks with specific power-wielding individuals or factions among the
Afghan Taliban would prove counterproductive. For example, many participants
wondered how the United States plans to negotiate with the “Quetta Shura”
Taliban or the Haqqani network if it was intent on isolating, or even targeting,
Mullah Omar and the Haqqani network leadership. Pakistani foreign policy elite
also warn against the imposition of multiple preconditions for political
reconciliation, arguing that the United States would have to remain flexible in
order for negotiations to succeed. Finally, Pakistani opinion makers are
unconvinced that the United States has the patience to work through a
challenging and uncertain reconciliation process; they therefore seek
reassurances that Washington will not abort the plan midway if things do not
seem to be progressing towards a smooth linear transition.
(iv) The United States would have to concretely address the issue of its long-term
security presence in Afghanistan, and explain what future role it envisions for its
military bases. In addition to articulating what a bilateral strategic partnership
with Afghanistan would entail,21 the United States should take all regional
stakeholders into confidence regarding its long-term physical presence.
(v) The state of the U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relationship was seen as intrinsically
linked to the two countries’ ability to cooperate on Afghanistan. Pakistanis wish
to see a more consistent and dependable partnership which ceases to view
Pakistan solely from a terrorism prism. Continued mistrust, participants feared,
may well force both sides to overlook a convergence of interests on certain
aspects of reconciliation in Afghanistan.
Pakistan
(i) Pakistan’s own policy requires coherence and clarity. While U.S. strategy in
Afghanistan will affect how the Pakistani strategic establishment behaves, a
purely reactive policy has severe demerits in terms of negative backlash in

Pakistan and continued uncertainty within the country.
(ii) Pakistan and the United States need frank and candid discussions on the
reconciliation phase in Afghanistan; each other’s expectations need to be fully
comprehended and reservations expressed to avoid a constant blame game and
fear on Pakistan’s part that it may be sidelined in the reconciliation negotiations.
(iii) Internally, there needs to be clarity on what role the security establishment is
able and willing to play in terms of bringing the Afghan Taliban factions to the
negotiating table. It may be dangerous for Pakistan to commit too much and
then fail to deliver. Conversely, continuing to insist on a role without articulating
46
what specific support the Pakistani security establishment can offer in
reconciliation will only force outside actors to seek a course that is less
dependent on Pakistan.
(iv) In terms of the regional framework, Pakistani opinion makers involved in the
discussions were partial towards a post-2014 security presence led by Muslim
countries. A greater role for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and
countries like Turkey was mentioned, as was the need to acknowledge the Saudi
and Iranian influence in Afghanistan. In general, there was support for Pakistan
reaching out more actively to regional countries like Iran and the Central Asian
Republics along with China to generate regional activism.
(v) A prerequisite for a healthy regional process, however, is greater trust and
collaboration between Kabul and Islamabad. Increased and sustained diplomatic
contact, participants believed, would help Kabul and Islamabad reach a
consensus on the shape and outcomes of the reconciliation dialogue. The need
to engage Kabul continuously was stressed; Pakistan’s civilian leadership is
believed to be best placed to do so even as the security establishment takes the
lead on implementing Pakistan’s Afghanistan strategy.
(vi) Participants had an interesting take on the Durand Line.22 While some
vehemently disagreed, most argued that this border would remain porous and
un-policed even if it were formalized owing to the close ties between Pashtun
communities on both sides. And while formalization is seen as being in Pakistan’s
interest, there was little support for making this a major hurdle in the
reconciliation talks. The status quo is considered to be a fait accompli for the time
being. Without disagreeing with this contention, those who stressed the
economic dimension of the relationship nonetheless suggested the need for
relatively better policing of trade activity to curtail the massive smuggling and
drug trafficking that takes place across the border, with its attendant damaging
effects on the Pakistani economy and society.
(vii) As a long-term vision, Pakistan needs to aggressively pursue policies of
inclusion in Afghanistan and terminate its continuing preoccupation with
maintaining exclusively Pashtun ties. Even in the reconciliation phase,
Pakistani policy may gain by increasing efforts, thus far marginal, to engage

non-Pashtun factions in Afghanistan to assuage their concerns about

Pakistani designs. There is a desire to see Pakistani policy move over time from
one of interference to neutral support for intra-Afghan dialogue and peaceful
co-existence.
(viii) The civilian government in Pakistan does not escape criticism from the
policy elite for what is seen as a virtual abrogation of its responsibility to deal
with tough foreign policy questions. Civilians need to take ownership and
reclaim some of the space from the security establishment since it is politicians
and diplomats who are best placed to bring about the ‘de-securitization’ of
Pakistan’s Afghanistan policy, a long-term vision which receives across the board
support.
47
India
(i) From a Pakistani perspective, India-Pakistan competition in Afghanistan can
best be avoided if there is greater transparency regarding India’s activities in
Afghanistan.
(ii) The two countries need to develop bilateral mechanisms to keep Islamabad
informed about New Delhi’s interests in Afghanistan and clear misperceptions
about the nature and intent of specific activities: for example, a regular
exchange of a fact-sheet on India’s presence and actions in Afghanistan with
Islamabad will be helpful. There was a specific call for closer intelligence
sharing with regard to Indian activities in Afghanistan, and even to address
Indian concerns about anti-India militants based in Pakistan.
(iii) Some participants were of the view that discussions on Afghanistan should
necessarily be seen as part of a broader India-Pakistan dialogue on bilateral ties.
Those who proposed this tended to see collaborative initiatives and dialogue on
Afghanistan as a confidence building measure which could help move overall
bilateral ties forward.
Iran
(i) U.S.-Iran tensions are another stumbling block in the end game in Afghanistan.
Pakistani policy elite are willing to recognize Iran’s legitimate interests in
Afghanistan and also admit that Iran’s preferred outlook is a moderate, inclusive
government, but one that is not Pashtun-dominated or with excessive Taliban

presence. This position is fairly close to Washington’s except that bilateral
tensions between these two countries have masked this obvious convergence. A
need to rectify the situation through quiet dialogue on the issue found support
in the project discussions.
(ii) Pakistani policy elite also see a need for Iran and Pakistan to engage more
actively on the issue of Afghanistan and to identify the overlap in their positions.
Iran’s lingering concern that Pakistan may end up backing the Taliban to rule
Afghanistan again needs to be assuaged through proactive diplomacy.
48
Post-script: Does

Osama Bin Laden’s
Killing Impact the
Afghanistan Calculus?
n May 2, 2011, Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden was killed in a U.S. raid
O in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The unilateral raid was conducted by U.S.

Special Operations Forces, led by the Navy SEALs in the early hours of
May 2. The assault teams flew in from Afghanistan, conducted a successful 45-
49
minute operation, and returned swiftly. Bin Laden was subsequently buried at
sea. The Pakistani civilian and military leadership was uninformed about the raid.
The roundtable discussions and most of the interviews conducted during this
project were completed before the May 2 episode. However, given the enormity
of this development and the potential for it to impact American and Pakistani
policy towards Afghanistan, the project team reached out to the roundtable
participants and requested them to reflect on the implications of bin Laden’s
killing. A response to the following two questions was elicited (between June 1
and June 18) via email:
(i) How do you think bin Laden’s death will change the U.S.’s end game in
Afghanistan?
(ii) Will bin Laden’s killing change Pakistan’s strategy vis-à-vis Afghanistan?
We received responses from 17 of the 39 roundtable participants and thus these

observations are not necessarily representative of the views of all those who
participated in the roundtable discussions.
The impact of bin Laden’s

death on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan
Respondents to these questions suggested that Osama Bin Laden’s killing will
not fundamentally alter the U.S. end game in Afghanistan, as the goal of denying
sanctuary to Afghanistan – and Pakistan –based militant outfits plotting to strike
American targets has yet to be achieved.
Most respondents however, expected the Obama administration to use bin Laden’s
killing to its political advantage. One of America’s stated goals in Afghanistan is to
“defeat and dismantle Al Qaida”, and bin Laden’s killing, most respondents felt,
helps achieve this in a symbolic, if not operational, context. Therefore, President

Obama could now reduce a substantial number of troops before the next U.S.
presidential elections; troop withdrawal commensurate with this perceived
success will give him additional political mileage during his re-election bid.23
Moreover, the impetus for U.S. troop withdrawal will gradually shift the emphasis
to a negotiated political solution. With Al Qaida significantly weakened – bin
Laden’s death will be capitalized to underscore how severely Al Qaida has been
dented – the United States will reemphasize that it is willing to negotiate with
the Taliban who accept Washington’s red lines. These demands may be more
seriously entertained as bin Laden’s killing has given the Obama administration
an opening to create a narrative of victory that can counter perceptions that the
50
U.S. military envisions an open-ended war in Afghanistan.
On the other hand, respondents were also concerned that Washington may
overcompensate and, for political reasons, seek to rapidly broker an agreement
in Afghanistan without laying the necessary groundwork. Some worried that this
may lead the United States to conduct talks with low-level Taliban who are not
truly representative of the core of the insurgency. Not only will such a deal be
unsustainable, but it will also cause the leadership of the main Taliban factions to
continue perpetrating violence.
In the near future, in order to facilitate the dual goals of hastening a political solution
and accelerating troop withdrawal, most of the responses predicted that the United
States will increase pressure on Pakistan to crack down on groups that continue to
launch attacks against ISAF and Afghan forces from Pakistan’s tribal belt.
The U.S.-Pakistan relationship

after bin Laden
The discovery of bin Laden in a garrison town in Pakistan put the state on a
diplomatic defensive. Responses reflected an acute awareness that the Pakistani
state had been embarrassed and cornered, with the world viewing bin Laden’s
presence in Pakistan as proof that it is Pakistan, not Afghanistan that remains the
center of gravity of the problem. This has enhanced concerns that the United States,
while putting pressure on Pakistan to “do more”, will also seek to hold out the option
of sidelining Pakistan during the negotiations. Islamabad is increasingly suspicious
about Washington’s intentions regarding Pakistani involvement in the Afghan
reconciliation process. The mutual mistrust between the ISI and the U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) and between the two militaries, exposed as it was during
the May 2 raid,24 has raised doubts about whether the United States and Pakistan can
collaborate towards a solution in Afghanistan. Respondents were also cognizant that
the ISI is widely reviled by foreign actors and that it is seen as holding up progress on
an Afghan settlement. Should the status quo persist, the blame would continue to fall
on the ISI and it will make the United States even more adamant on sidelining the
Pakistani security establishment. In essence then, the state of the bilateral

relationship is being seen as an impediment to allowing the two sides to work

together in the Afghan reconciliation process.
The anticipated pressure on Pakistan to “do more” is seen as an additional cause for
bilateral tensions in the coming months. Responses pointed to renewed pressure
on Pakistan to launch a major military operation in North Waziristan - being built
up at the time most of the responses came in - and to cooperate with the United
States to eliminate other militant leaders such as Ayman al Zawahiri as a trend that
will continue. Some believed that the United States may even use the opportunity
to underscore the importance of a broader counterterrorism approach which
targets all militant groups that threaten the West. This would include not only the
Taliban but also groups like Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Worse yet, some feared that the
51
United States will gradually turn its attention to Pakistan itself and bank heavily on
unilateral measures such as drone strikes and intelligence presence in Pakistan to
go after high-value targets in the country. Pushing Pakistan to act against the
whole gamut of terrorist groups, let alone greater reliance on unilateral actions,
will, however, strain bilateral ties further and may impact Pakistan’s ability and
willingness to play a positive role in the Afghan reconciliation process. The result,
as seen by most respondents, would be a more challenged negotiation process
and continued instability in Afghanistan, and indeed, Pakistan.
Notably, there are views which disagreed and suggested that despite growing
mistrust, the United States realizes the importance of the Pakistani security
establishment in achieving peace in Afghanistan. Suspicions aside, they argued,
the Obama administration will continue to reach out to elicit Pakistan’s support
in nudging the Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table.
Bin Laden’s influence on Pakistan’s

security calculus in Afghanistan
Respondents suggested that bin Laden’s death had no bearing on Pakistan’s
national interests in Afghanistan. Islamabad would continue to seek an inclusive
government in Afghanistan that has adequate Pashtun representation and cedes
some power to the Afghan Taliban. To this end, Pakistan will continue to support
a political process that leads to a representative regime in Kabul. Strained ties
with the United States will however strengthen the voice of those who back a
more proactive regional approach without the United States.
Separately, a few respondents pointed out that bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan
and retaliatory terrorist attacks within the country following his killing have
exposed domestic fault lines in Pakistan’s national security strategy. In the run-up
to the 2014 Afghanistan transition, the Pakistan Army and intelligence agencies
will have to address homegrown militant networks and the threat posed by
militant infiltration into the security apparatus. Internal threats will further
strengthen Pakistan’s desire to see a stable Afghanistan that cannot be used by
militant outfits as a launching pad for attacks against the Pakistani state.
That said, there is still a belief that Pakistan cannot afford to follow U.S. dictates
in terms of opening new military fronts. An all out operation in North Waziristan
continues to find opposition. Lack of capacity and the high likelihood of a serious
backlash in Pakistan from the Afghan Taliban-TTP combine worried most of the
respondents. Further, as the United States renews efforts to broker a political
solution in Afghanistan, groups like the Haqqani network will be approached for
negotiations. Pakistan’s ability to bring them to the table will be dented if an
offensive is launched against them. Also, as discussed at length, these groups
provide Pakistan leverage in the end game and are still Pakistan’s friendliest
option in Afghanistan in any post-transition scenario.
52
The impact of bin Laden’s death

within Afghanistan
Respondents also reflected on the impact bin Laden’s departure would have on the
Afghan Taliban and within Afghanistan. Judging by the responses, it is clear that bin
Laden’s killing is not synonymous with the demise of Al Qaida, let alone the Taliban
factions. Moreover, some Taliban groups like Mullah Omar’s no longer had as active
a funding and training relationship with Al Qaida as it did once or as the Haqqani
network may have even today. In essence, the Afghan Taliban’s operational
capabilities will remain more or less intact. However, symbolically, the killing is a
blow to the insurgency. There was a sense that bin Laden’s removal and the
subsequent narrative of victory against Al Qaida may make it easier for the Afghan
government and/or the United States to negotiate directly with Afghan Taliban
leaders. A greater emphasis may be laid on distinguishing Al Qaida from the Taliban
to facilitate the process further – a welcome step from the Pakistani perspective.
In terms of the Afghan government in Kabul, the bin Laden episode was seen as
having provided President Karzai and his beleaguered security forces the
opportunity to blame their failures against the insurgency on Pakistan’s security
policies. At the same time however, President Karzai is believed to realize
Islamabad’s importance in ensuring stability in Afghanistan and the futility of
attempting to isolate Pakistan from the scene. His efforts to improve bilateral ties
with Pakistan in recent months, the desire to work towards a bilateral and regional
solution to the conflict (manifested by multiple official visits to Islamabad and
efforts to invigorate the Afghanistan-Pakistan Joint Commission for Reconciliation
and Peace), and to give shape to a power-sharing arrangement are seen in this
stead. That said, some of the respondents also acknowledged that tensions remain
in the relationship nonetheless, and that there is still a long way to go before Kabul
and Islamabad could fully coordinate efforts to bring about an acceptable
negotiated settlement, and in turn, relative stability to Afghanistan.
Endnotes

1 In this phase, we also held conversations with the military’s official spokesperson and at the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs to better understand the Pakistani state’s official position on the subject.
2 The roundtable in Lahore was held on March 2, 2011, the one in Peshawar on March 5, and the four in
Islamabad on March 8-10.
3 We requested Lt. Gen. (Rtd.) Asad Durrani, Ejaz Haider, Dr. Rifaat Hussain and Amb. Humayun Khan to serve
as the “cross-checkers”.
4 Historical data reflects official Pakistani figures (converted from Pakistani Rupees) released for the
cited years by the Federal Bureau of Statistics (Government of Pakistan). There is a discrepancy in the
current trade figures released by various governments and international sources but all approximate
the cited figure.
5 Mullah Omar’s group of Taliban is popularly referred to as “Quetta Shura” in recent literature and by the
international media due to the outfit’s alleged presence in the Pakistani western city of Quetta. Our use of
this term is merely driven by the desire to maintain consistency with existing literature and for the ease of
readers familiar with it.
6 For the purposes of this report, “Afghan Taliban” refers to all major and minor insurgent factions fighting
under the Taliban moniker, including Mullah Omar’s “Quetta Shura” and the Haqqani network. Specific
53
groups are referred to individually where a distinction is sought between the various Afghan Taliban
factions.
7 The general sense is that the U.S. military has usurped significant policy space on the “Af-Pak” question in
Washington. Some participants even drew parallels between the U.S. military’s current clout in this context
and the Pakistan military’s hold over its country’s security policy.
8 See “Clinton to Taliban: Dump al-Qaida or ‘Face Consequences’,” Inaugural Holbrooke Lecture, Asia Society,
February 18, 2011, http://asiasociety.org/policy/strategic-challenges/us-asia/clinton-taliban-dump-al-
qaida-or-face-consequences.
9 These views were shared in March 2011, before U.S. President Barack Obama announced a withdrawal
timetable for U.S. forces from Afghanistan on June 22, 2011. According to the plan, 10,000 U.S. soldiers will
be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2011, and a total of 33,000 will exit by summer of 2012. A
steady decrease in numbers will continue thereafter till the transition is complete in December 2014.
10 One participant suggested that this lack of clarity was intentional and was meant to provide U.S.
decision makers flexibility in changing the future course if needed. This view however did not resonate
with the others.
11 After Osama Bin Laden’s killing, a period not discussed in this part of the report, there has been fresh
debate on this issue with some in Pakistan contending that bin Laden’s departure makes it easier for the
U.S. to define its mission as Al Qaida-centric.
12 General David Petraeus has since been appointed the Director of the American Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA).
13 Some participants saw the United States as having an eye on the Afghan mineral wealth and as having an
interest in using its presence in Afghanistan to counter Iran and the expansion of Chinese interests into
West Asia.
14 A mention was made of the possibility of a de facto north-south division of Afghanistan in line with former
U.S. Ambassador Robert Blackwill’s proposal (See Robert D. Blackwill, “Plan B in Afghanistan: Why a De
Facto Partition is the Least Bad Option,” Foreign Affairs, Vol.90, No.1 (January/February 2011)). However,
participants dismissed this as unrealistic and unacceptable to the Afghan people and key regional actors.
15 These views predate Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s statement of June 18, 2011confirming that there have
been direct political contacts between the United States and the Taliban. The then U.S. Defense Secretary,
Robert Gates subsequently confirmed these contacts. Although the contacts were characterized as
preliminary, Pakistan expressed its displeasure at being kept out of the loop by the United States. See Emma
Graham-Harrison and Hamid Shalizi, “U.S. in Peace Talks with Taliban, Karzai Confirms,” Reuters, June 18,
2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/18/us-taliban-peace-talks_n_879680.html; and “Pakistan
Upset at Being Left Out of US-Taliban Peace Talks,” Press Trust of India, June 27, 2011,
http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pakistan-upset-at-being-left-out-of-us-taliban-peace-talks-115094.
16 Participants holding this view believed that it was their state’s obsession with treating the Taliban
government in Kabul during the 1990s as a mere proxy which allowed the latter to penetrate Pakistani
society and to run a number of its fund-raising and ideological campaigns from Pakistan itself. The
implications for Pakistani society in terms of greater susceptibility to radical Islamist ideologies were
immense according to this narrative.
17 For the purposes of this report, the ANSF refer to all civilian and military forces, including the Afghan
National Army (ANA), the Afghan National Police, and all the branches that fall under these.
18 Bilateral exchanges between Pakistan and Central Asian countries took place in spring 2011. On March 7-
10, 2011, Tajikistan’s President Emomali Rahmon met his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari in
Islamabad. Soon after, on March 15-16, 2011, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani visited
Kyrgyzstan. President Zardari also visited Turkey on April 11-14, 2011 and met with the Turkish leadership.
19 President Zardari visited Moscow on May 11-12, 2011, where he met with Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev and signed agreements on agriculture, aviation, and energy cooperation. The visit was Zardari’s
first high-profile foreign trip after the killing of Al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan by U.S. Special
Forces on May 2, 2011. The following week, on May 17-20, Prime Minister Gilani visited China to seek
stronger support from Beijing. The trip was significant, and controversial from a U.S. perspective, because
it came at a time when already strained U.S.-Pakistan ties were being further tested by the bin Laden
episode.
20 Ben Arnoldy, “Can Afghanistan Economy Thrive Without Poppy?” Christian Science Monitor, March 5, 2010,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0305/Can-Afghanistan-economy-thrive-
without-poppy.
21 Kabul and Washington had already initiated conversations about a bilateral strategic partnership when
the roundtable discussions were held. The strategic partnership seeks continued U.S. access to some
military bases in return for a U.S. commitment to continue providing assistance to the Afghan
government.
22 The Durand Line is the 1610-mile-long contested border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Marked by
the British colonial rulers in 1893, the Durand Line was declared invalid in 1949 by the Afghanistan Loya
54 Jirga as they saw it as ex-parte on their side. Kabul still claims the Pashtun territories in Pakistan that
comprise FATA and parts of KPK province. Pakistan, however considers the Durand Line as an international
border. In practice, the border remains porous owing to ancient tribal connections between Pashtuns that
transcend the Line. Thousands cross over every day, both legally (tribes divided by the Line have Easement
Rights) and illegally. In recent years, the Pakistan military has blamed part of its counterterrorism
shortcomings on lack of support for its proposal to fence the Durand Line and install biometric facilities to
keep better track of cross-border movement.
23 These responses were received before June 22, 2011, when President Obama announced his withdrawal
timeline for U.S. troops in Afghanistan (see footnote 9).
24 The unilateral strike by the United States against Al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden’s compound in
Abbottabad heightened concerns within Pakistan about a growing U.S. intelligence footprint within its
territory and consequent threats to its national sovereignty. This friction manifested itself on May 14 2011,
when, in response to the raid, a joint session of both houses of the Pakistani parliament passed a
unanimous resolution to defend Pakistan’s sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity against U.S.
military actions. For the past few months, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, particularly ties between the
countries’ powerful intelligence agencies, the CIA and ISI, had been in a downward spiral: in December
2010, the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad was leaked; in March 2011, Pakistan’s army chief
General Kayani condemned a drone attack that reportedly killed 41 people—he also hinted that his force
could shoot down drones in Pakistani territory, suggesting that CIA-ISI cooperation in the drone program
has been reevaluated; in April 2011, Director General of the ISI, General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, met with CIA
Director Leon Panetta in Washington to demand more control over U.S. spy programs within the country;
more recently in May-June 2011, Pakistan decided to expel U.S. military trainers from the country, only to
see Washington hold back monetary assistance earmarked for the training program and related activities.
Email: info@jinnah-institute.org
www.jinnah-institute.org

POST 2014 Afghanistan Report

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

POST 2014 Afghanistan Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

POST 2014 Afghanistan Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pakistan, the United States and

the End Game in Afghanistan:

Copyright Jinnah Institute 2011

This publication has been produced with the

Pakistan, the United

Yusuf taught at Boston University's Political Science and International Relations

Zaidi is currently working jointly on a study that maps trends in religious

Samina Ahmed Project Director, South Asia, International Crisis

Ashraf Ali President, FATA Research Center, Islamabad

Cyril Almeida Assistant Editor and columnist, Dawn

Masood Aslam Lieutenant General (Retd.), Pakistan Army;

Arif Ayub Ambassador (Retd.); former Pakistani

Shahzad Chaudhry Air Vice-Marshal (Retd.), Pakistan Air Force;

Asad Durrani Lieutenant General (Retd.), Pakistan Army;

Tariq Fatemi Ambassador (Retd.)

Imtiaz Gul Executive Director, Centre for Research and

Ejaz Haider Consulting Editor, The Friday Times

Rifaat Hussain Chair, Department of Defense and Strategic

Pakistan, the United States, and

the End Game in Afghanistan

Zafar Jaspal Associate Professor, Department of International

Humayun Khan Ambassador (Retd.); former Foreign Secretary of

Simbal Khan Director Afghanistan and Central Asia, Institute

Raheel Khan Freelance journalist

Tanvir A. Khan Ambassador (Retd.); former Foreign Secretary of

Khalid Mahmood Ambassador (Retd.); former Pakistani

Khalid Maqbool Lieutenant General (Retd.), Pakistan Army; former

Talat Masood Lieutenant General (Retd.), Pakistan Army;

Hamid Mir Executive Editor, Geo News

Nadir Mir Brigadier (Retd.), Pakistan Army; Author and

Rustam Shah Mohmand Ambassador (Retd.); former Pakistani

Saad Muhammad Brigadier (Retd.), Pakistan Army; Defense Analyst

Mian Qadruddin Ambassador (Retd.); former Additional

Rana Rahim Political Affairs Officer, United Nations

Rasul Bux Rais Professor, Department of Humanities and

Abbas Rashid Journalist and Chairman, Society for the

Abdullah Riar former Senator, Pakistan Peoples Party;

Mahmood Shah Brigadier (Retd.), Pakistan Army;

Ibrahim Shinwari Former President Tribal Union of Journalists

Ahmer Bilal Soofi President, Research Society of International

Juma Khan Sufi Author and progressive political activist

Ayaz Wazir Ambassador (Retd.)

Nasim Zehra Director, Current Affairs, Dunya TV

Pakistan, the United States, and

the End Game in Afghanistan

Ahsan Iqbal Member National Assembly and Deputy Secretary

Jahangir Karamat General (Retd.), Pakistan Army; Founder and

Khurshid Kasuri Chairman Steering Committee, Pakistan Muslim

Malik Amad Khan Member National Assembly, Pakistan Peoples

Habibullah Khan former Additional Chief Secretary, FATA

Afrasiab Khattak Senator, Awami National Party; President, Awami

Ahmed Rashid Journalist and Author; former correspondent, Far

Maulana Atta-ur-Rehman Member National Assembly, Jamiat-e-Ulema

Waseem Sajjad Senator, Pakistan Muslim League (Q);

Farooq Sattar Member National Assembly and Deputy

Najam Sethi Editor-in-Chief, The Friday Times

Najmuddin Shaikh Ambassador (Retd.); former Foreign Secretary of

Jinnah Institute’s Strategic Security