Ok, so you more or less concede that there was no negotiating with the Taliban, and you would be correct to accept that fact, because it's true.
Well, as I initially said, I did not expect a overnight solution with Afghanistan. I think it could eventually have changed, which is still better than worsening relations with an occupation that has a high chance of failure.
Also, there was a lot to be gained diplomatically from other countries, as I mentioned. Who knows how much could of been accomplished with the vast support the US had then.
As for the rest of what you posted, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. How does one nation establish diplomatic relations with the man on the street? I guess that's what you were trying to say, but honestly, I'm not sure. I think you want to believe there was something there to deal with that just wasn't.
I recall hearing of negotiations before, so there must have been some form. But I will check this (tomorrow, going to sleep soon).
As to your response to my question about the Marshall Plan, it was a nice dodge, but you really didn't answer the question. I'll answer for you: If the U.S. had not stayed in Germany and Japan and helped restore the government and rebuild the infrastructure, those countries would still be lagging behind where they are today. There is no question that the U.S. presence in those countries expedited their respective rise to be the economic powers that they became. And all the while, an occupation was underway, at least under your definition of it.
I don't disagree with what happened in Germany and Japan. I know less about Germany, but Japan was particularly unique in their response. Perhaps it would be better to compare Afghanistan to Vietnam, because the dilemma is similar. They continue to fight our presence there, but due to using guerrilla-warfare there really is not a military solution.