In first reading through the article, I misread a paragraph:

The U.S. continues to resist ISAF expansion, and others will not offer troops without U.S. leadership. Without security, reconstruction and political progress languish. Afghans complain they see almost no results of the billions pledged. Even when money trickles in, there is inadequate security to carry out tasks. During a September 2002 summit with Mr. Karzai, President Bush announced a showcase project--the rebuilding of the highway between Kabul and Kandahar. Though the U.S. heavily lobbied Tokyo to contribute and start work from Kandahar, Japanese officials claim that the Pentagon refused to deploy any of the 3,000 U.S. troops there to protect Japanese engineers. Hence after eight months, work has not begun in Kandahar.

On rereading it, the author specifically places most of the blame for refusing to commit more forces on the U.S., and implies that others would be willing if the U.S. did.

More net research showed that over 60 countries have pumped aid into Iraq, with soldiers being provided by some. While I still submit some nations would not exactly weep buckets if the U.S. effort in Afghanistan went tits-up, I would have to place most of the blame for lack of support on the U.S.

Which was the point of the original post in the first place.