This editorial from the New York Times is a hallmark of the kind of twisted thinking that can only be generated by liberal imperialists.
Plenty of the online commenters appear to see how absurd the argument here is. (Thanks to "iona" for bluntly summing up the course of US intervention in Afghanistan: "...we only make
things worse because we are there to support either thug and get those
pipelines built.") Others, like "MR, a rank-and-file do-gooder in Afghanistan," completely avoid engaging the question of why the US must prolong its occupation / donation of money and blood, and give vent to their deep sadness over what the Afghan people have had to endure in the past two, or three, or hundred decades.
Sorry, MR and comrades, but empathy alone does not make a foreign policy. And as for the Times editorial board: to recommend an undemocratic "power-sharing deal" because you think it might prevent factional violence is something (I sincerely hope) you would never dream of doing in the United States, or Canada, or Japan. The difference between this kind of machination and simply choosing maharajas to rule in place of the Empress Queen, as the British Empire commonly did for large swathes of India, is toilet-paper thin.