Nigel, your summary nicely catches my main points. I'd like to stress two points though: One is that the 'form of governance specific to Afghan realities and experience' does need to blend traditional/customary institutions and more 'modern' elements, of which the most important is probably inclusivity (i.e. including all groups and tribes). If not, conflicts will persist and statebuilding will be impossible. The second is that the compromises that would be tolerated (rather than accepted) temporarily would also have to be judged on their impact on peacebuilding and statebuilding. E.g. in rural Afghanistan people do not accept excessive corruption that serves for personal enrichment, and such corruption fuels conflicts. So this type of corruption had better not be tolerated. However, people do tolerate that leaders take care of their constituencies, in a way that according to formal modern rules would be corrupt. Reforming those 'rules of the game' would in my view have to wait to a later stage. I know it's unconventional, so again, your comments and especially experiences are welcome!