Look, I'm not saying they're Mother Theresa, but if you think about it, they have more right to be there than the US. One is a foreign occupation supported by literally no one, and the other a local resistance at best and an agressive militia at worst, that at least has some support.
When you say that if there are to be fair elections, you can't have armed militants running around, that includes the US. Presumably, the theory is that as long as the whole country is under the rule of a single armed organization, as opposed to several, that will somehow ensure democratic elections? To me, it seems to be a matter of priority. Elections first, then get the US out, or get the US out, then elections? There is talk of "getting the job done", now assuming that job is holding elections (and thats a pretty big assumption), then is it even possible with the US still there? You would say that its impossible with them gone, but is it not equally impossible to hold elections under occupation.
Right now, I'm around where you are aldo, I support establishing peace prior to elections (though it seems reasonable to expect some consessions in return for relinquishing control ) though not of the way in which it is being done: killing a path to legitimacy.
The basic question is, once you throw down your gun and are at their mercy, do you trust the US to act fairly and justly in the interests of democracy? Excuse my cynicism, but I don't.