Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
They did no such thing, and specifically refused to. The Taliban offered first to try Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and then later went as far as saying they were willing to hand Bin Laden only, none of the rest of the organization, over to a third country that the US would agree to not put pressure on for extradition etc, for trial in that hypothetical third country. This was accompanied by a demand for evidence, evidence they had already been given not just by us, but also by Pakistan after they'd reviewed our information.
I think those are and were transparently unreasonable terms.
I think you're largely correct when it comes to corruption on the military side of things, and partially when it comes to keeping our hands on the wheel too much in forming the new Afghan government. But this idea that all we had to do is accept them handing over Bin Laden to avert a war just isn't so.
|
The Taliban offered many times to turn him over if the United States would provide them with evidence he was behind the attack. They even were willing to involve the OIC which is a very favorable bloc that is pro-US. The Taliban is obviously not a reliable source, but neither is George Bush.
Ignoring the fact we had no extradition treaty with Afghanistan, there are next to no countries who would willingly turn over people without evidence or an agreement. That includes our closest allies.
The United States had no interest in trying Bin Laden. It's why their offers were always vague enough to be out of reach (just like they did with Iraq). They wanted war. Likely a mix of the country needing the morale boost of blowing up some brown folks and enriching military contractors.
But the fact is that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are different entities with different goals. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.