Bowe Bergdahl- POW or Deserter?

[TGHusker]

I guess there is anger out there. I'm sure this will be added to the House list of investigations pretty soon. I'm ok wt getting the guy out - he is still an American. Let the military deal with his issues. I'm not for the price it took - 5 of the worse Taliban thugs out there. We have to also remember that lives may have been lost in capturing these guys in the 1st place and now that they will be free - good chance more lives may be in jeopardy.

So are they released to a half way house in Qatar, do they were ankle bracelets so we know their every move? Or do we keep a Drone on each one and after 1 year of good behavior in Qatar- they each get droned??

 

Story on soldiers KIA looking for him.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/col-david-hunt-we-lost-14-soldiers-searching-for-deserter-bergdahl-video/

http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/deserter-prisoner-swap/2014/06/02/id/574718/

 

A bit ironic, we let go 5 bad dudes (bad) but are stepping up our search of home grown terrorists (good thing)

 

http://news.yahoo.com/u-revives-group-fight-homegrown-extremists-officials-155621629.html

 

Some of the headlines on Drudge:

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/

[carlfense]

I can't stress this enough- My outrage over this is not about Obama. And I don't appreciate having to make that statement to you more than once.

 

 

My outrage may be just as well placed with the ultra conservative source news accounts I've read of this. Or, maybe some people don't agree with my point of view that, if Bergdahl was a deserter, then f#*k him. I suppose it is also possible that the administration knew nothing of the desertion and all the decision making, to trade 5 Taliban for a deserter, fell upon lower level military members. Or, maybe he was not an anti-American deserter at all. I see 3 possible options, none of them impress me at all, and 2 of them really piss me off.

 

1- He was not an anti-American deserter and the people spinning this story in that direction need to be held accountable for spreading lies and innuendo. Shot or hung works for me.

 

2- He was a deserter and this fact was known or very strongly suspected before the trade. I don't care if this traces all the way up the line to Obama or not but, wherever the buck stops- fired, impeached, shot or hung works for me. That is how bad of a decision I feel trading 5 Taliban for 1 deserter would be.

 

3- He was a deserter and nobody involved in the swap arrangement knew this until immediately following the swap, even though it is apparent numerous people in his platoon knew about it and had been instructed to not discuss/mention it. This option hints at a total lack of institutional control by somebody pretty damn far up the chain but, maybe not Obama.

 

I'm sensing that some may not feel trading a deserter, whose actions likely caused his capture and the resulting loss of other American soldiers lives trying to rescue him, for 5 Taliban is all that disturbing. It bugs the hell out of me. But please don't try to turn your/others lack of anger at this situation as just me being anti Obama. You could not be more wrong if you tried.

 

So again . . . "[t]hat's what we do - we protect/rescue our own" until we're to the point where we might be exchanging prisoners?

 

Risking US lives directly in a rescue operation is commendable and in line with our values but we can't trade captured enemy combatants? Why?

[JJ Husker]

So again . . . "[t]hat's what we do - we protect/rescue our own" until we're to the point where we might be exchanging prisoners?

 

Risking US lives directly in a rescue operation is commendable and in line with our values but we can't trade captured enemy combatants? Why?

Maybe our disconnect here is based on what each of us assumes was known at what time.

 

Only hours or days or maybe even a few weeks after he went missing is when I assume we attempted a rescue. I could be wrong. But, since that is what I imagine, I think it is likely that suspicion or proof he deserted was not widely known. So, I view that as a normal case of "leave no man behind" and I do not have a problem trying to rescue him in that situation. In fact, I would expect that to happen.

 

Fast forward 5 years later. Recent reports make it sound like everybody and his brother knew/strongly suspect he had deserted. Also there are some indications, based on news stories, that people who knew were instructed to not talk about it. Personally, I don't trade a f'ing dog to get him back if it is confirmed he deserted and was actually captured because he walked away from his post. So, no, at that point in time I do not attempt a rescue nor do I trade 5 Taliban to get him back.

 

Does that help explain how I feel?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Obama also still has the problem with Gitmo. This was a big campaign promise that he was going to close it down. I honestly think he made all the accusatory statements about how horrible Bush was for having Gitmo in the first place. He then got into office and saw the classified intel about the people there and said....."Oh sh#t". So, closing that down has mysteriously been put on the back burner and forgotten. BUT, he still has these guys down there and some maybe they really don't think they even need to keep anymore.

 

 

Not to derail the thread, but that's really not the situation.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/guantanamo-bay-close_n_3438347.html

 

It's a complicated situation, but it wasn't for lack of interest on Obama's part. Shockingly enough, Congress has made it difficult for Obama to do something he's promised/intended to do.

 

 

 

Meh....those two articles don't change my opinion.

[carlfense]

 

So again . . . "[t]hat's what we do - we protect/rescue our own" until we're to the point where we might be exchanging prisoners?

 

Risking US lives directly in a rescue operation is commendable and in line with our values but we can't trade captured enemy combatants? Why?

Maybe our disconnect here is based on what each of us assumes was known at what time.

 

Only hours or days or maybe even a few weeks after he went missing is when I assume we attempted a rescue. I could be wrong. But, since that is what I imagine, I think it is likely that suspicion or proof he deserted was not widely known. So, I view that as a normal case of "leave no man behind" and I do not have a problem trying to rescue him in that situation. In fact, I would expect that to happen.

 

Fast forward 5 years later. Recent reports make it sound like everybody and his brother knew/strongly suspect he had deserted. Also there are some indications, based on news stories, that people who knew were instructed to not talk about it. Personally, I don't trade a f'ing dog to get him back if it is confirmed he deserted and was actually captured because he walked away from his post. So, no, at that point in time I do not attempt a rescue nor do I trade 5 Taliban to get him back.

 

Does that help explain how I feel?

 

I think the bold was true almost immediately . . . but I could be wrong about that. If it was known/suspected/assumed at the time of the rescue operations does it change your opinion?

 

 

 

Edit: The official line has been that Bergdahl was captured while on patrol . . . but his unit wasn't patrolling the night that he was captured. That seems to reinforce the idea that the circumstances of his capture were pretty easy to figure out . . .

[BigRedBuster]

I think that I've +1ed every BRB post in this thread.

You stud!!!

[carlfense]

 

I think that I've +1ed every BRB post in this thread.

You stud!!!

 

[tschu]

It's a complicated story and situation, so the reaction and discussion is going to be complicated as well. There is probably no right answer, but Obama's decision to trade for him had an eye on international politics and relations as well as tying up all loose ends in Afghanistan, rather than just "should we rescue him or not because he might be a deserter"

 

I don't know the right answers, but I get both sides. I think that rescuing him was the right decision, but again, it seems complicated.

[carlfense]

There is probably no right answer, but Obama's decision to trade for him had an eye on international politics and relations as well as tying up all loose ends in Afghanistan, rather than just "should we rescue him or not because he might be a deserter"

That's a good point. I wonder how much of a role our withdrawal from Afghanistan played in this? It was reported awhile back that Karzai had been negotiating with the Taliban over a peace agreement . . .

[JJ Husker]

 

 

So again . . . "[t]hat's what we do - we protect/rescue our own" until we're to the point where we might be exchanging prisoners?

 

Risking US lives directly in a rescue operation is commendable and in line with our values but we can't trade captured enemy combatants? Why?

Maybe our disconnect here is based on what each of us assumes was known at what time.

 

Only hours or days or maybe even a few weeks after he went missing is when I assume we attempted a rescue. I could be wrong. But, since that is what I imagine, I think it is likely that suspicion or proof he deserted was not widely known. So, I view that as a normal case of "leave no man behind" and I do not have a problem trying to rescue him in that situation. In fact, I would expect that to happen.

 

Fast forward 5 years later. Recent reports make it sound like everybody and his brother knew/strongly suspect he had deserted. Also there are some indications, based on news stories, that people who knew were instructed to not talk about it. Personally, I don't trade a f'ing dog to get him back if it is confirmed he deserted and was actually captured because he walked away from his post. So, no, at that point in time I do not attempt a rescue nor do I trade 5 Taliban to get him back.

 

Does that help explain how I feel?

 

I think the bold was true almost immediately . . . but I could be wrong about that. If it was known/suspected/assumed at the time of the rescue operations does it change your opinion?

 

 

 

Edit: The official line has been that Bergdahl was captured while on patrol . . . but his unit wasn't patrolling the night that he was captured. That seems to reinforce the idea that the circumstances of his capture were pretty easy to figure out . . .

 

If it was known to be a fact that he had deserted, yes it changes my opinion and no, I would not have tried to rescue him. I would not put others lives at risk to recover a deserter, just as I would not trade prisoners for one.

 

If it was merely suspected that he had deserted, then it gets a lot trickier. I think you error on the side of deciding to rescue him if you do not know for sure. I guess it boils down to how much anyone knew about his possible desertion at the time. The reason(s) for his desertion may also influence how I feel about it. Were there mental health issues manifest because of his service etc.?

[Hooked on Huskers]

POW or Deserter?

 

Who knows. My guess snapped, crazy, insane or perhaps drug induced like LSD. Supposedly he shed his weapons and walked away from his guard post in dangerous Afghanistan.

 

BTW, I thought no negotiating with terrorists ???

[carlfense]

Here is what Sen. McCain said in February:

 

COOPER: Would you oppose the idea of some form of negotiations or prisoner exchange? I know back in 2012 you called the idea of even negotiating with the Taliban bizarre, highly questionable.

McCAIN: Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release -- Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence-building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man.

I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details. [...]

COOPER: So if there was some -- the possibility of some sort of exchange, that's something you would support?

 

McCAIN: I would support. Obviously I'd have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home, and if exchange was one of them, I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/bowe-bergdahl-release_n_5439644.html?1401826016

 

 

I'm sure no one will be surprised that he is singing a very different tune now. Someone needs to tell these GOP congresscritters that they don't have to reflexively turn 180 degrees just because President Obama agreed with them. Ridiculous.

[knapplc]

I don't understand the anger over getting this guy back, even if he was a deserter. If he deserted he'll face some kind of consequence. If not, we got one of the good guys back, safe.

 

This sentiment that we should have left him there for deserting... how does that fit into our legal system? We parole murderers, but we can't save the life of a guy who deserted?

 

The search for this guy put our troops in predictable situations, and as they've said, the more the Taliban could predict what the guys were doing, the more effective their IEDs & ambushes could be. The blood of those men who died looking for him is on that dude's hands if he's a deserter. But leaving him there means that, without a trial, he's sentenced to death.

 

I have a hard time being OK with a death sentence for this guy, especially if we don't know exactly why he was away from his post.

 

And I don't see how you can be outraged NOW over saving this man's life if we won't know whether he deserted or not until later.

[JJ Husker]

My outrage has subsided a bit after reading and thinking more on this. There is little question that his fellow soldiers and commanders knew he was a deserter virtually immediately. So that leaves us with the question of whether or not a deserter is worthy of rescue efforts that endanger other soldiers and/or trading prisoners to get him back.

 

My initial, kneejerk, reaction to this question was; Hell no, we don't waste 10 seconds on this guy, he made his bed- let him sleep in it. But then I reimagined the question if this deserter was my son. What I came up with was yes, any American soldier, deserter or not, is worth retrieving from a Taliban prison. I would like to think that the Commander in Chief has to consider these issues as if those soldiers are his sons or daughters and, when you look at it that way, as distasteful as releasing these 5 high ranking Taliban prisoners is, I believe the right decision was made. Now it is time to prosecute Bergdahl for his deserting and, if it is found to be true that other troops died trying to rescue him, then he should receive the stiffest sentence possible, including death.

[BigRedBuster]

JJ...

 

I can live with that way of looking at it.

 

One thing that crosses my mind is that if he literally just dropped his weapons and walked away from his post into enemy hands, there has to be some type of mental issues. Those mental issues probably were brought on by being in combat and in those situations. After all, we know that many soldiers coming back have PTSD and other issues they have to work out with help. Most of those issues don't get recognized till that person tries to assimilate themselves back into every day life. Sometimes it happens on the battle field.

 

So...if he was sent into battle and that caused mental issues bad enough that he did what he did.....who sent him into battle in the first place? The US government and you and me as citizens of this country. If we hadn't sent him over there, he wouldn't have had the mental problems and he wouldn't have left his post to walk right into enemy hands.

We owe it to him to bring him home, evaluate what happened and let the cards fall where they may.