Good interview, quite informative. I liked both the questions asked as well as the fact that Musharraf was allowed to answer them in detail.
I didn't agree with him that the N. Waziristan deal was the success which he saw. Not when then RC-East commander Lt. Gen. Eickenberry- now ambassador to Afghanistan saw a 300% increase in cross-border activity along the border. That was not the intent of the deal as I understood Musharraf and hardly notes outliers/defaulters but a carte blanche general offensive along those reaches.
I know that we clearly saw a dramatic surge in taliban operations starting in 2006 in both the south and east of Afghanistan and it hasn't yet abated. As such Musharraf's objectives weren't reflected on the ground any more in the north than they had been with the deal in the south to which he freely admits was a failure. Why the dis-connect in perception of success on his part I'm unsure.
I believe he meant that the deal was a success from the Pakistani POV. I have little insight into this deal so I won't comment. However, like he said, the three-pronged approach highlighted "military, political and socio-economic" requires that some sort of deals are signed, preferrably from a position of great leverage (as in Swat-Bajaur-Malakand offensive). If I am not mistaken, certain American analysts are urging the US to engage in similar deals with the local Taleban (not saying that they haven't already done so).
His comments about pashtu inclusiveness to the afghan political process were noted and remain a continuing problem that's only gotten worse with the passing of time. Yet part of that stems from the inability to identify a pashtu leader able to reach across tribal boundaries, create consensus, and is committed to the process of governance as set forth in the constitution.
You will have a hard time finding a Pashtun agreeing to American-style governance in Afghanistan, and I speak from what little I know about the Pathan populace. Compromises will have to be made on both sides, probably more so on yours, but as Musharraf said, it may be a necessity. Hence the like "The Pashtuns have been isolated... the US has to be more sensitive to ethnic issues", I don't think you've shown that much yet.
Edit
One more thing, I disagree that Taleban is an existential threat to Pakistan. We've discussed this over and over, worst case scenario, the Taleban can have "control" over the underdeveloped parts of Pakistan, i.e., FATA, some parts of NWFP and Balochistan. Other than that, they may have an "influence" all over Pakistan, but it will remain firmly out of their control. The pattern of thinking is simply different. India is only an existential threat to Pakistan in the case of nuclear war, which is a very remote possibility.
I think Gen. Musharraf either misunderstood the meaning of "existential threat" or may have misheard him.