Negotiations in Afghanistan?

That is what David Lazkanoiturburu ponders about at Gara[es], in part following the latest spat of articles on Afghanistan that British newspaper The Guardian published yesterday (specially this one). 

Something that seems evident is that Obama wants Afghanistan solved before the next presidential elections in 2012 and that Petraeus has been demoted (yes, demoted - or put on probation if you wish) in a move that means: or you solve that somehow or you won't be the military media hero anymore. Or in other words: if that remains a burden for me, it will be even more of a burden for you.

But Petraeus is solving nothing it seems. He has managed to irk Pakistan enough (150 people killed by drone attacks in few weeks) as for these to get the Khyber Pass closed, what in turn has allowed three successive attacks against US supply convoys in less than a week (120 trucks burned). 

Whatever the case, it seems that criss-crossed negotiations between all the actors (and the USA is just one of them), including the most hardcore Taliban groups, the Haqqani, are going on. What is not clear is who is promoting the negotiations or who is more desperate for them (Petraeus, the Taliban, Islamabad, Kabul?) nor if these hold any future other than keeping the channels open while the war goes on.

Lazkanoiturburu also mentions that the war has extended to Tajikistan, where troops have been successfully attacked by Islamist rebels. 

It's obviously much like Vietnam, the problem is that while in Vietnam it was the good guys who eventually won (the communists, if you had any doubt), in Afghanistan all are equally evil and undesirable.