I suspect the answer is the regular subterfuge.

Public pronouncements of our support, but continued efforts to divert things around him and others, and to those that are supportive (per West's article).

The more noise in support, the less dollars in reality.

I think Dr. Abdullah's comments have to be read in his, and not out context.

His Dad was a Senator, he grew up with a great reverence for the parlimentary institutions, and a deep and long struggle to re-establish it. We get lots of dope and speculation on positions and interests in the South and East, but not much perspective on the other folks (the ones that are not threats).

He is reported to be a US favorite, but I don't think he wants to go in as a US lackey under any circumstance, nor be one. In reality, he may be a lot harder, for example, on civilian deaths than Karzai, and much more directive of US/Int'l Aid, presently running everywhere but in a straight line.

I find his genuine interest to be legit. He does not want to be put in office by the Americans, and especially not in violation of the Constitution. Down the road, his position may be much more important to him and Afghanistan, and that's where his head and heart is.

Personally, I believe that the integrity of the Afghan institutions are supported better if we do not pick, choose and kick-out. But, as you say, we really do control most of the money, and that does give the right to direct how it is spent---even with Abdullah or anyone.

Right now, it looks like a return to the Hall of Mirrors strategy. Lots of whispers and dodges---things said but not followed up with actions, and things done with saying.

Business as usual.