RFE/RL: There is a lot of speculation amid reports that British politician Paddy Ashdown is to be appointed as the United Nations' new "super envoy" to Afghanistan. What are the implications of his appointment?

Barnett Rubin: It is likely to happen. He is not just a politician. He was the high representative of the international community in Bosnia-Herzegovina. But this job [in Afghanistan] is different from that. In [Bosnia], he almost exercised a veto on the sovereignty of the government. He won't do that in Afghanistan. The main requirement for this job is that he has to be able not just to coordinate but make coherent the international activity in Afghanistan. Of course, one of the positive things about Afghanistan is that there is so much international support -- 60 different countries, development banks, [and] aid organizations. It is good that there is broad support. But the downside of that is that it is very incoherent and very poorly coordinated and extremely wasteful with all these organizations having their own programs. And also different military organizations. So it would be very important that he come in and have the authority, really, to make all of these organizations -- to coordinate their activities according to the agreed on programs of the Afghan government and the international community. The purpose of the job is not primarily for him to come in there and put pressure on the Afghan government. He will be able to have more influence on the Afghan government certainly only if he succeeds in actually making the international action more coherent so the Afghan government has someone to talk to.

RFE/RL: What is your assessment of the recent decision by Washington to deploy more than 3,000 additional U.S. Marines to the southern regions of Afghanistan?

Rubin: After the recent NATO meeting, [U.S. Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates concluded that he wasn't going to get more troops out of the Europeans -- especially since the chairman on of joint chiefs of staff, the top uniformed military man in the United States, was telling Congress that they weren't putting more into Afghanistan because they considered Iraq a higher priority. So I think he needed to show that the United States also considered Afghanistan to be a priority and was willing to put some of its forces there ...[and] not just think that he could get results by hammering at the Europeans -- who may not have the capacity to [send troops].

RFE/RL: Do you think that the recent bombing in Kabul's Serena Hotel indicates that the Taliban are adopting new tactics in Afghanistan?

Rubin: Definitely. It is a new tactic. It might even be a new strategy. In a way, I have been surprised they haven't used it before because with Al-Qaeda in Iraq, one of their first targets was the UN office [in Baghdad]. The idea was to eliminate as much of the international civilian presence as possible. Many of us have been expecting something like that in Afghanistan for a long time. It didn't happen. But it looks like they have finally decided to make that strategic choice and attack the international civilian presence as well. It's high risk for them because people in Afghanistan, while they resent the high lifestyle of foreigners, still [do not want them to abandon Afghanistan]. Even Taliban commanders who have come to various meetings with the Afghan government have said: "We demand the removal of foreign troops but we accept that we need aid." So getting rid of aid organizations might be even less popular [among Afghans] than their fighting against troops. But I think they recognize correctly that if they can terrorize the international civilians enough to withdraw or pull into something like the Green Zone in Baghdad, then that will really have a catastrophic effect on the international operations there.

RFE/RL: How do you view the media reports about the talk of possible American military attacks against Taliban and Al-Qaeda inside Pakistan?

Rubin: First let us bear in mind that it is only talk so far. There are discussions, probably, about that within the administration. I am not privy to them. But I know that there are people who are aware that this is a long struggle that requires the political cooperation of the government and people of Pakistan and that it can't be solved by a few missile attacks.

RFE/RL: In a recent investigative story, "The New York Times" reported that Pakistani intelligences services that previously nurtured some Islamist militants have lost control over them. What is your appraisal of the issue?

Rubin: It is accurate in the sense that it is no longer part of the official mandate of the Pakistani military and the Pakistani intelligence to help those groups but, rather, to try to control them. On the other hand, there are some people at least in the military and the intelligence who are sympathizers and supporters of those groups. Therefore, the military and the intelligence are not doing much of a job at actually controlling them. And in some cases, we know that serving and retired military personnel have been helping them.