Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

There is an excellent article by a retired brigadier general on why we should get the hell out of Afghanistan. It's published in TIME magazine. 

https://time.com/5664533/afghanistan-troops-leave/

All the hoopla about finalizing a peace deal with the Taliban has died. Considering what they WERE saying, that a signed contract was expected with a day, within hours, etc. at this point,  it's like the groom not  showing up for the wedding. Something is obviously wrong. 

And the Americans must know that something's wrong because why else would they be saying that the U.S. is never leaving Afghanistan completely, that we will always maintain a presence there? Surely, they must know that that is non-negotiable for the Taliban that the U.S. has to get out completely and by a firm, stated date. So, are they trying to antagonize them and sabotage the process? 

And the fierce fighting and dying is continuing unabated. I discovered a website that provide up to the minute reporting on the situation in Afghanistan including the fighting. It's British.

https://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/World+News/Asia/Afghanistan 

I'm very glad I found it because it is starkly opposite to what the Taliban is reporting. The Taliban website reports the battles, and it always sound like they win, and it lists the number of people they killed. But, they rarely mention their own casualties. They talk  a lot about civilian casualties- at the hands of the Afghan government and the U.S.- but they only occasionally say something like "and 2 Mujahideen were martyred." 

http://alemarahenglish.com/

But, that other site spins it exactly opposite, making it sound like the government and coalition forces are kicking ass on the Taliban and killing them in droves. From reading both, you would think that they are talking about two different wars.  

And doesn't it also seem that if the signing of the peace deal was imminent, that both sides would lighten up on their attacks? 

But, I'll leave you with this: the silence about the state of the negotiations is deafening. Obviously, there is a snag somewhere, and I don't see how Trump's recent remarks isn't extinguishing all hope because if he's adamant that we're staying there forever, then the Taliban will never accept it. 

And note that neither has conceded anything really because the Taliban has no interest in or desire to harbor terrorists. So, when they guarantee that they won't do it, it's not a concession. That's a freebie for them.  And when Trump says that he's willing to reduce down to 8600 troops, that is something that he wants to do.  It's not like he's offering it reluctantly as a concession to the Taliban.  And franly, I think he should do it anyway, with or without a peace deal.  

But, the point is that after 9 rounds of negotiations, neither side has given an inch. So, I am wondering now: if they announce a 10th round, is the lapdog media going to report on it with all the hope and promise as before?  Or are they going to be honest this time, and say , "if you guys couldn't resolve it in 9 rounds, adding a 10th won't help, especially since Trump  can't stop saying things that are absolute dealbreakers to the Taliban "