Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3
With the US consulate in Peshawar under attack, and the Afghan president criticizing his western sponsors, it seems like a good time to get a quick “report card” on the US’s Afpak strategy. Anchor Marco Werman speaks with Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank in Washington.

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  The Obama administration policy toward Afghanistan is intertwined with its policy toward Pakistan.  In essence, the White House says you can’t fix one without the other.  And at least one aspect of the so-called Afpak strategy has been working.  Pakistan’s Army has stepped up its fight against Islamic militants, but they haven’t gone away.  Just today militants attacked the U.S. consulate in the Pakistani city of Peshawar.  Lisa Curtis is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington.  With Pakistan stepping its fight against the Taliban, Lisa, and Hamid Karzai criticizing his western sponsors, are the Pakistanis now the more reliable partners for Washington?

LISA CURTIS:  Well I wouldn’t go that far.  I think Pakistan has been fighting in the tribal areas with more determination.  This has been helping, of course, across the border in Afghanistan, but I think Pakistan is still hedging, to some degree, in terms of how much it’s cracking down on the Afghan Taliban.

WERMAN: And specifically, do you mean they’re flirting with the Taliban as they have in the past?

CURTIS: Well I think they have been willing to assert their power by arresting some Taliban leaders.  They arrested, of course with the U.S., Mullah Baradar.  Back in February a couple of other senior leaders, but I think what we’ve heard from conversations with Pakistani military officials is that they haven’t quite turned that corner completely and that they aren’t really sure what’s going to happen in Afghanistan, so they don’t feel they can let go of the Taliban completely.  There’s still a lot of suspicion with this July 2011 withdrawal date that President Obama laid down in his speech to West Point last December.

WERMAN: And until they turn that corner, are you saying that Pakistan can’t be an entirely 100% reliable partner for Washington?

CURTIS: Well certainly on the Afghanistan issue.  I think until we see them really cooperating, having the same objectives of stabilizing Afghanistan and the U.S., no, Pakistan will not be perceived as a 100% reliable partner.  I think the U.S. is trying to show that it’s interested in a long term strategic partnership but the truth is there are underlying suspicions on both sides.  There is still a sense of mistrust and even with these arrests in Pakistan of the senior Afghan Taliban leaders, you talk to any administration official, and they will say this does not mean that Pakistan has completely adopted a new strategy.  You know, frankly Pakistan has different interests in Afghanistan.  Its main interest is in limiting Indian influence.  That often goes up against what the U.S. is trying to do which is to make sure that Afghanistan doesn’t again become a terrorist safe haven.  So again, the goals are not completely aligned there between the U.S. and Pakistan.  And even though we’re moving in the right direction, we still have a lot of work to do.

WERMAN: So militarily the U.S. and its allies appear to be doing pretty well.  The militants have suffered setbacks in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, but what does that count for when the political arena is unfocused?

CURTIS: Well look, a lot of pieces need to fall into place in order for Afghanistan to move forward, to become more stable, and like you said, I think one of the pieces that are falling into place is General McChrystal’s counter-insurgency strategy.  I think we’re finally seeing the kind of resources, the kind of troops pour into Afghanistan that are needed.  The argument was always we know how to do counter insurgency, but we haven’t had the troops to do it.  Well now the troops are coming in but as you said, we also need credible government to come in the Taliban’s place.  We can push them out, but unless the local government connecting up with the central government is there delivering the services, supporting the people, the strategy is going to be extremely difficult and may not be possible.  So we need to find an effective way to work with Karzai.

WERMAN: Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, thanks very much.

CURTIS: Well thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.