1) @US4AfghanPeace Zalmay Khalilzad’s explanation of what happened in the final days of the fall of Kabul is a jumbled mess. He is spinning to make himself look good but it fails. If you take his narrative at face value, he essentially green lighted the Taliban to enter the city.
2) @thomasjoseclyn notes that the idea that the Taliban was going to negotiate after it surrounded Kabul is absurd. He is of course right. foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/15/zal…
3) @husainhaqqani also nails it. Negotiations at this point were gaslighting. Zal was a fool if he believed there was anything left to negotiate.
https://mobile.twitter.com/husainhaqqani/status/1438389322986790914
4) let’s assume Zal is being truthful. Yes, I know… but if you do, he essentially says that mullah Baradar wanted the US to secure Kabul, and Zal and @CENTCOM Gen. McKenzie said no.
5) according to Zal, Baradar says; “And who’s going to take responsibility for what will happen in Kabul? We want you to take it. Because we just agreed not to go into Kabul for two weeks. We want you to take responsibility. Well, Frank says, “my mission is what I described.””
6) Again, if you take what Zal says at face value, Baradar offered the US the mission to secure Kabul, and Zal & McKenzie declined. And McKenzie even showed Baradar where US forces would operate. How does this make Zal look good?
7) As noted in the initial tweet, Zal’s statement is a confused mess. But he does admit the Taliban entered Kabul before Ghani fled, which makes Zal’s ‘blame Ghani for the failure to make aa last second agreement with the Taliban’ theme nonsense.
8) Zal believed in negotiations to the bitter end. Either Baradar was playing him like a fiddle, or Baradar was out of touch with the real Taliban. That Zal didn’t know either way is telling.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
