Hamid Karzai left a Paris summit on Afghanistan with a fistful of dollars, and a ringing in his ears. The 65-nation conference eventually responded to aid requests with generosity and a warning that their patience has almost reached an end on seeing improvements in fighting corruption and incompetence in his administration. The alliance has begun to wonder whether they need another option besides Karzai to start seeing any improvement:

Nevertheless, the conference brought both aid commitments and a warning to the weak Afghan president. Both in the general conference and in one-on-one talks, the key heads of state made it clear they were more than dissatisfied with his performance. Given his country’s persistent problems with corruption, the drug trade and an arbitrary judicial system, Karzai’s achievements have been paltry when it comes to the core issues of reconstruction. In fact, his clan is even involved in many unsavory deals.

In addition to the large numbers being quoted, the harsh criticism of Karzai is the salient signal from the Paris meeting. In recent years, the West pinned its hopes on Karzai, a member of the Pashtun ethnic group, consistently praising him as the only alternative. And although it repeatedly turned two blind eyes to his administration’s mismanagement of the country, it is now equally unashamed about reading him the riot act. “The question is no longer what Karzai wants from us,” says one US envoy, “but what we expect from him.”

Once again, a perfidious, behind-the-scenes diplomatic drama was being staged in Paris. While the dignitaries in the conference room spoke of friendship and eternal alliances, the comments they made outside, in front of the cameras, were decidedly more direct. “Reconstruction in Afghanistan is not failing because of the money,” said one European diplomat, “the trouble lies with the Karzai government itself.” The Kabul government, the diplomat continued, will have to make many improvements within the next two years, or it will lose the West’s confidence once and for all.

The US signaled its dissatisfaction by cutting its commitment almost in half; in fact, we were the only nation to commit to less than Karzai’s request.  The rest of the nations met the request, but they warned that it might be the last time if the Afghan leader can’t clean up Kabul and start taking control of his nation.  The billions that has flowed to Afghanistan has shown little effect on corruption, security, or the drug trade.

Of course, Afghanistan has a lot more problems than the other front on the war on terror, Iraq.  Iraq had modernized decades ago and had a stronger national identity than Afghanistan, which has a very strong tribal tradition.  While the infrastructure of Iraq didn’t meet Western standards even in the best of times, it far outstrips the nearly non-existent infrastructure of Afghanistan outside of its major cities.  In a real sense, all of the concerns have a real chicken/egg quality — it’s hard to establish security and beat the drug trade without infrastructural improvements, and they can’t build the infrastructure without improved security and chasing off the drug trade.

Is there another option besides Karzai?  For inter-tribal politics, the leader would have to come from the Pashtun tribe, which has been supportive of the extremists.  Karzai appeared to be a Pashtun with an eye towards modernization and a more cosmopolitan approach to governance.  He managed to pull together a democratically-elected government and has also managed to stay alive, two key successes that can’t be diminished.  So far, no one has risen to Karzai’s stature, at least no one who would be inclined to hold a government together.

At one time, Nouri al-Maliki looked like a weak horse, too.  When circumstances forced the Bush administration to lean heavily on Maliki for reforms, Maliki transformed into a unifying figure of surprising strength and courage.  Karzai may well prove to be the same kind of father of a new Afghanistan — but it may take far longer than it did Maliki.