Not possible. There is no concensus of any kind on leadership in Afghanistan. It's primative, tribal societal structure precludes the possibility of those from one tribe permanently allying with those from a competing tribe. (the different "leaders" are in competition for personal power)Temporary alliances to further personal goals which on the surface seem to coincide are common, but end as soon as those goals are acheived, conflicting personal goals come to the fore and naturally get in the way.
The warlords are not leaders. For the most part - I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, there might be an exception we haven't heard of yet - they are power hungry mini dictators.
Dictators are not leaders. They are tyrants.
What are the alternatives? I see the two - USA will micromanage and babysit Afghanistan and after a while will run away complaining about savagery and lack of thankfulness from the natives. The second is to split Afghanistan along the etnic lines (not very likely).
But I do not agree with you. Before the Soviet intervention Afghanistan was a state with an ineffectual government based on the compromise and some degree of consensus. This is the condition which could be achieved if the imperial ambitions and pride were not on the way. Anyway, YOU will have your way. People like me have little impact on the real decisions.