Much of what is going on involves the usual diplomatic dance: Afghan President Hamid Karzai says he is willing to talk; the Taliban reply that they are too, but only after foreign troops leave Afghanistan. And there matters appear to stall.
But behind the dance are indications that something is beginning to happen. The Nation, one of Pakistan's major English-language newspapers, reports that since late August secret talks have been underway in that country between U.S. officials and the Taliban.
According to these unconfirmed reports, the talks – timed in part to coincide with the visit to Pakistan of U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte – are aimed initially at resuscitating local truces in Afghanistan's hotly-contested southern provinces.
If The Nation is even remotely correct, these developments mark a sea change in America's us-versus-them approach. Since he invaded Afghanistan to depose the Islamists, President George W. Bush has steadfastly refused to talk to them. In late 2001, when Karzai okayed a negotiated deal with Taliban leader Mullah Omar, he was overruled by then U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
But with Rumsfeld gone and Bush going, things are changing in Washington. As The Associated Press reported recently, experienced conservative career diplomats are replacing exuberant neo-conservative hawks on key foreign policy files such as Afghanistan.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/256053
Note: http://www.thestar.com/...

"Polls show that Ottawa's no-talks position is at odds with more than 60 per cent of Canadians. "
Trouble is, to negotiate with citizens of a foreign country implies that we would be the legitimate government with authority to do so. That would mean we don't support the right of the Afghan Government to do so. Which is at odds with 100% of Canadians.
The Government of Afghanistan negotiates with them, and always has. It's their right, let's let them without interference from us.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
<br />
"If they want to talk, we have two demands: All foreign troops must leave, and we must have an Islamic democracy in Afghanistan."<br />
<br />
"Islamic Democracy". Think: "Military Intelligence" or "Honest Politician".<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070912.wafghanmain12/BNStory/Afghanistan/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070912.wafghanmain12/BNStory/Afghanistan/</a><br />
<p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />
Preaching to the choir, you are. "Without Warning, Sans Remorse".
I don't know about 'the best'. We might have the combat distance record, but what happened to that guy (and his team) after his record shot in Afghanistan? (I already know; it's an exercise for the reader). I did hear of 2 Royal Marine snipers who shot the motors out of a running boat trying to run drugs inland, from the deck of a moving ship. 2 shots - no kills! That is a fantastic demonstration of skill!
Back on topic - if the US is doing these back room negotiations, then they are acting like the occupying force they claim they aren't. And, the Taliban are not to be trusted. 'Islamic Democracy' is the key to their strategy, and their interpretation of the Q'uaran means they only have to keep their word to another mulsim. To an infidel (or a muslim who isn't muslim 'enough'), it's is quite alright to lie.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
I don't see anyone else occupying Afghanistan, other than a few axillary troops hobbled together from a couple of other "Willing" countries.