Tom Friedman reports that the US Marines have found a higher level solution to fueling their vehicles, ships and aircraft: to reduce their dependence on pure petroleum by aiming to derive half their fuel from solar power (for generators in Afghanistan), nuclear power (for ships) and a combo of bio-fuels and petroleum for aircraft and vehicles.
Why are they doing this and upsetting oil company special interests along the way? I paraphrase: firstly because every gallon of petroleum delivered to a front line unit in Afghanistan costs about $400 if you include security costs of the convoy that brings it. Secondly, reducing dependence on imported gasoline from the mid east reduces the need for Marines to die in its defence, and it also reduces US dependence on petro-dictators. And thirdly in the long run it makes great economic sense: as gas prices rise, it will be cheaper. Go Marines as Tom Friedman says. But that the country adopt a similar policy.
See his full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19friedman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage
Creativeconflictwisdom's Blog 
In the big picture of American interests the problem with Afghanistan is that it is a hornets nest of competing tribes and gangs in chaotic cycles of honor, revenge and vendettas–when then are not fighting an invading force together.
It has been this way for 1000s of years–that is why it is known as the ” graveyard of empires” from Alexandra the Great to the British.
America does not care what kind of government they develop as long as
1/ They do not foster and harbor terrorist groups that threaten US interests
2/ They establish stability so that ENERGY commerce can thrive.
NATO and the neighboring countries have additional interests in stability.
1/ So they can build 2 pipelines that will not be blown up.
2/ Control over heroin and narco terrorim
3/ China and Iran do not want crazed Sunni Muslim fanatics inflaming chaos within their own borders.
At the NATO conference in Lisbon last month the 28 members of NATO committed to staying in Afghan for the long term.
In fact NATO is revitalized by this new mission after questioning its own relevance since the end of the Cold War- this is good for American interests.
From— Lisbon The Strategic Concept states, “We are firmly committed to preserve its [NATO’s] effectiveness as the globe’s most successful political-military alliance.” ie they are going global.
Again the issue is ENERGY
1/ The Silk Road project to construct an oil and gas pipeline connecting Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (the TAPI pipeline).
That pipeline will be extended to the Pakistani port of Gwadar and thus connected with European markets, which is the ultimate objective of the project.
2/ The $7.3 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline which will ultimately connect to China.
Both these projects require stability in AfPak so the pipelines can deliver the Oil and Gas.
NATO, India, Pakistan and China all have a self interest in imposing that stability the region for the long haul.
I certainly agree with your conclusion about everyone having an interest in Afghanistan’s stability: just a matter of finding a way to align local interests! It could be a reasonably prosperous country but modernization is not an overnight project as the neo-cons seem to imagine.