This is a complex question. On the operational level in the area of Afghanistan I would gradually dumped this puppet Karzai. I think it is a mistake to try to run Afghanistan and to micromanage it. Much better would be to sincerely induce Afghans to form a leadership based on the grassroot consensus involving those called "warlords" who are the natural leaders for their society. The only restriction would be excluding or marginalising Taleban. The setup of such national consensus government would not be predesigned in Washington or would not be predicable. It would have to be a result of spontaneous (although induced and guided) process.
Such new leadeeship would be moderate (consisting of diverse groops), not hostile to USA and VERY stable. The purpose of it should not be being a pliable proactive tool for West but a relatively passive obstacle in spread of extremism. Afghanistan then could be left alone and Americans would be free to focus on other urgent issues.
On the global level I would like to see clear, unambiguous condemnation of EVERY separatist, freedom fighting, terroris movement without any hidden exceptions. Be it in Macedonia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Tibet or else. The only permitted way of secession would be through a peacefull and slow methods. That way the new order could be established in which both terrorism and imperialism would be discouraged and major powers could truly cooperate.
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.
Unfortunately, the consensus in Afghanistan is to fight each other. If a stable situation is ever reached by that road, it will be one where Afghanistan is broken into a thousand tribal monarchies, which is about as fertile a ground for terrorism as you could ask for.
Personally, I would put the region under iron-fisted, velvet-gloved American hegemony, much like Japan and Germany after WWII. A few decades under such custodianship might civilize them, but more importantly it will make other nations think twice about attacking America.