Losing a war to someone who's already surrendered

[midnight rambler]

Something only Chump can do -

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/22/afghanistan-donald-trump-taliban-surrender-here-we-are/

[crimethink]

Something only Chump can do -

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/22/afghanistan-donald-trump-taliban-surrender-here-we-are/

Logical Conclusion: Victory was not the objective.

[C.Martel]

Why is Bush refusing to negotiate with the Taliban?

President Bush is flatly rejecting offers from the Taliban government to hand Osama bin Laden over for trial if the United States stops bombing Afghanistan and provides proof that the Saudi exile was involved in the September 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington.

On Sunday, Afghan Deputy Prime Minister Maulvi Abdul Kabir told a group of international journalists in Jalalabad that if the US stopped bombing Afghanistan, “We would be ready to hand him over.” Kabir called for negotiations, saying, “If proof is provided, a third country could be chosen which is under the influence of neither the United States nor the Taliban.”

Bush rejected the offer out of hand. Speaking to reporters on Sunday, just minutes after returning with top national security advisers from his Camp David retreat, Bush declared, “They must not have heard. There are no negotiations. This is non-negotiable.”

This is not the first offer the Taliban leadership has made to negotiate the possible transfer of bin Laden. On the eve of the war, the Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, said bin Laden would be handed over if proof of his involvement in the terror attacks were presented. Bush rejected that offer and proceeded to launch the bombing campaign.

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that a faction of the Taliban leadership had met secretly with Pakistani officials the day before and said they would try to negotiate the handover of bin Laden if the US stopped bombing for two or three days. The Times reported, however, that Pakistani and US officials were doubtful the overture would resolve the crisis because Bush “has said repeatedly that he will not negotiate, or even discuss, terms for the handover of Mr. bin Laden.”

At the onset of the crisis, the US government said it was preparing to launch a war against Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to surrender bin Laden. Yet when the Afghan regime makes reasonable offers to do precisely that, the US response is to dismiss the offers and reject any form of negotiation.

From a purely practical standpoint, the issuing of demands combined with a posture of “no negotiations” is absurd. Even if the Taliban wanted to meet the US demands, how could they do so without entering into discussions with Washington? The US modus operandi of presenting ultimatums while refusing to negotiate can only mean that the Bush administration is not seriously interested in obtaining compliance. It is acting in bad faith.

The Taliban has asked for proof of bin Laden’s involvement in the September 11 attacks. What is unreasonable about insisting that the US back up its claims by presenting solid evidence? Some two weeks prior to launching the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to make public an evidentiary case against the man whom the US accuses of masterminding last month’s attacks. But the Bush administration reneged on this pledge.

One can only imagine the response of the American government if another country demanded that it hand over a US resident on murder charges, while refusing to disclose its evidence against the person in question.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/10/tali-o16.html

[Joshua01]

Everyone here thinks they know what the fuck is going on. We have no fucking idea!!!!

[midnight rambler]

Everyone here thinks they know what the fuck is going on. We have no fucking idea!!!!

I'm thinking slurping down that Trump Koolaid has rendered you clueless.

[vacuum]

The article says Bush would not accept their surrender at the beginning of the war. Not sure how thats Trump's fault.

[osoab]

The article says Bush would not accept their surrender at the beginning of the war. Not sure how thats Trump's fault.

Also should point out that if the original "enemy" that attempted surrender fled to Pakistan, Yemen, or Langley then the current "enemy" would not be the ones that surrendered originally.

Might have some originals, but it is a new crop.

Reads more as an anti-Republican piece.

I was going to say that there is an ant-right website. The I saw that the website is one of Glenn Greenwald's projects.