It didn’t take long after the release of the four-page U.S.-Taliban agreement for critics and skeptics to pop up and scream “surrender!” at the top of their lungs. Former national security adviser John Bolton did his usual schtick, calling the deal that U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad devoted a year and a half to negotiating a giant ruse. Susan Rice, President Barack Obama’s former national security adviser, wasn’t far behind, portraying the agreement as if it were the 21st-century version of the Munich Agreement. Bloomberg columnist Eli Lake was none too pleased either, comparing Saturday’s signing ceremony to the “dishonorable surrender” of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords.

The opponents are loud and certain of themselves, asserting the United States gave the Taliban legitimacy by icing out the Afghan government and using the Taliban’s formal name, the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan,” in the agreement. Yet none of them can articulate an alternative that is viable or one the American public would support. Other than more military pressure on Taliban positions, stronger red-lines at the negotiating table, and a stiffer backbone — all of which would simply extend America’s participation in the war — the haters are completely at a loss and can’t do much other than Monday morning quarterback.