24
24
0
I did not write this article though I agree with many points. I will discuss/debate but, please do not personally attack me. Again, I did not write the article.
By Salil Puri
With the Army’s announcement today that Bowe Bergdahl will be charged with desertion, soldiers all over were elated. At the same time, many troops, veterans, and politicians seized on these charges to once again attack the President over the negotiation and trade of five Afghan Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl. They are all wrong. You might be too. Now, many of you are already probably angry, maybe even starting to foam at the mouth. I understand that. Take a deep breath, and try to second guess yourself. Think about why you might be wrong. Think of it as an exercise in critical thinking. Consider, for just one moment, that there might be factors you aren’t aware of, or that hadn’t been presented to you before. Let’s walk down that road for a moment, shall we?
First, the President did not trade Bergdahl, E-5 type (he won’t be honored here by reference to his rank) for five terrorists. He was exchanged for five prisoners of the recognized and deposed Afghan government. Neither Clinton, Bush, or Obama ever had the Afghan Taliban labeled as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. They were a government that both Clinton and Bush recognized, and even provided foreign aid to, before 9/11. We exchanged Redcoats for prisoners during the Revolution, Nazis for POWs in WWII, and Viet Cong for GI’s in Vietnam. Prisoner exchanges are a legal and robust part of American military history.
Secondly, it is a sacred responsibility for the President to recover captured troops. It doesn’t matter that Bergdahl is a shitbag, it doesn’t matter that he deserted. What matters is that he was an enlisted man in the US Army, and an American. How many Afghan lives do you think are worth an American service-member’s?
Now, many people who are certain he deserted are saying the President shouldn’t have traded for Bergdahl because Bergdahl deserted. Many of these people despise the President with a deep-rooted partisan loathing. Some of those people might even be reading this right now. So, take a moment, think about what you’ve been arguing. You want to give the President, a man you despise, carte blanche to abdicate his duty towards men and women in uniform, based on allegations? Really? Follow that rabbit hole down for a minute, and see where it leads.
A soldier, or perhaps a diplomat, or maybe an intelligence officer, gets abducted overseas. Maybe this individual has some public or private disagreement with some high ranking member of the Executive Office. Perhaps if enough people are convinced the abductee is traitorous, he is labeled an Enemy of the State. So then we don’t demand the President do everything he can to recover this individual? Are you comfortable with that? Probably not, but that’s exactly what many people are advocating the President should have done. What about you?
So let’s talk about allegations. Allegations are not charges. Charges are not convictions. I am 99.5% convinced that Bergdahl deserted his post. But neither my opinion nor yours matters one whit, because all of us who wear the uniform swore an oath to defend the US Constitution. That beloved document speaks to a concept known as Due Process. Within UCMJ, Bergdahl is guaranteed that due process, just like everyone else in uniform. Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men, where rights are tossed out because the man in question isn’t winning any popularity contests?
Bergdhal is one of ours. He’s an American soldier. He has a history of mental illness, and the Army enlisted him despite his rejection by the US Coast Guard. Mentally ill people often do irrational things. That doesn’t excuse his behavior, and he will be tried in a Court Martial. If convicted, he will likely be stripped of his rank, forfeit pay, and hopefully spend a long time in prison. I bear not ounce ounce of sympathy for Bergdahl. Nor do I ask you to. I merely ask that you recognize that he is a uniformed soldier who has been accused of a grave crime, and it is up to us, America, and the United States Army, to charge, try, convict, and punish him. That’s our right, our responsibility, not the Haqqani Network’s.
Now, if you’re still angry with me, the floor is yours.
Salil Puri is an NCO and member of the Psychological Operations regiment. With an undergraduate degree in four disciplines, psychology, history, government, and Middle Eastern Studies, and an MA in security policy, Mr. Puri applies his military and academic background to solving world problems and making people angry, as he assuredly just did. A consultant with the Culper Group, he can be reached via [login to see] . The opinions expressed here are his alone, not the Army’s not the Culper Group’s, not The Rhino Den’s, just his.
http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/why-youre-wrong-about-the-president-and-bergdahl/
By Salil Puri
With the Army’s announcement today that Bowe Bergdahl will be charged with desertion, soldiers all over were elated. At the same time, many troops, veterans, and politicians seized on these charges to once again attack the President over the negotiation and trade of five Afghan Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl. They are all wrong. You might be too. Now, many of you are already probably angry, maybe even starting to foam at the mouth. I understand that. Take a deep breath, and try to second guess yourself. Think about why you might be wrong. Think of it as an exercise in critical thinking. Consider, for just one moment, that there might be factors you aren’t aware of, or that hadn’t been presented to you before. Let’s walk down that road for a moment, shall we?
First, the President did not trade Bergdahl, E-5 type (he won’t be honored here by reference to his rank) for five terrorists. He was exchanged for five prisoners of the recognized and deposed Afghan government. Neither Clinton, Bush, or Obama ever had the Afghan Taliban labeled as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. They were a government that both Clinton and Bush recognized, and even provided foreign aid to, before 9/11. We exchanged Redcoats for prisoners during the Revolution, Nazis for POWs in WWII, and Viet Cong for GI’s in Vietnam. Prisoner exchanges are a legal and robust part of American military history.
Secondly, it is a sacred responsibility for the President to recover captured troops. It doesn’t matter that Bergdahl is a shitbag, it doesn’t matter that he deserted. What matters is that he was an enlisted man in the US Army, and an American. How many Afghan lives do you think are worth an American service-member’s?
Now, many people who are certain he deserted are saying the President shouldn’t have traded for Bergdahl because Bergdahl deserted. Many of these people despise the President with a deep-rooted partisan loathing. Some of those people might even be reading this right now. So, take a moment, think about what you’ve been arguing. You want to give the President, a man you despise, carte blanche to abdicate his duty towards men and women in uniform, based on allegations? Really? Follow that rabbit hole down for a minute, and see where it leads.
A soldier, or perhaps a diplomat, or maybe an intelligence officer, gets abducted overseas. Maybe this individual has some public or private disagreement with some high ranking member of the Executive Office. Perhaps if enough people are convinced the abductee is traitorous, he is labeled an Enemy of the State. So then we don’t demand the President do everything he can to recover this individual? Are you comfortable with that? Probably not, but that’s exactly what many people are advocating the President should have done. What about you?
So let’s talk about allegations. Allegations are not charges. Charges are not convictions. I am 99.5% convinced that Bergdahl deserted his post. But neither my opinion nor yours matters one whit, because all of us who wear the uniform swore an oath to defend the US Constitution. That beloved document speaks to a concept known as Due Process. Within UCMJ, Bergdahl is guaranteed that due process, just like everyone else in uniform. Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men, where rights are tossed out because the man in question isn’t winning any popularity contests?
Bergdhal is one of ours. He’s an American soldier. He has a history of mental illness, and the Army enlisted him despite his rejection by the US Coast Guard. Mentally ill people often do irrational things. That doesn’t excuse his behavior, and he will be tried in a Court Martial. If convicted, he will likely be stripped of his rank, forfeit pay, and hopefully spend a long time in prison. I bear not ounce ounce of sympathy for Bergdahl. Nor do I ask you to. I merely ask that you recognize that he is a uniformed soldier who has been accused of a grave crime, and it is up to us, America, and the United States Army, to charge, try, convict, and punish him. That’s our right, our responsibility, not the Haqqani Network’s.
Now, if you’re still angry with me, the floor is yours.
Salil Puri is an NCO and member of the Psychological Operations regiment. With an undergraduate degree in four disciplines, psychology, history, government, and Middle Eastern Studies, and an MA in security policy, Mr. Puri applies his military and academic background to solving world problems and making people angry, as he assuredly just did. A consultant with the Culper Group, he can be reached via [login to see] . The opinions expressed here are his alone, not the Army’s not the Culper Group’s, not The Rhino Den’s, just his.
http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/why-youre-wrong-about-the-president-and-bergdahl/
Bergdahl
Desertion
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 40
16
16
0
There is an emotional response that doesn't change with Bergdahl's return after the exchange, doesn't change with his being charged and doesn't change even if, as the author asks, I conduct this exercise in critical thinking.
Having a soldier taken from your unit is the worse feeling imaginable. I would offer it is worse then the feeling of losing a soldier because of the sense of urgency you have to do everything with in your (the individual and the unit) power to recover the soldier back to safety, knowing the entire time that most of these situations end in the death of the captive, often with the loss of other lives in the process.
I would dispute the inference that this was a sensible trade. There was enough information that this person left voluntarily and having served in that specific area of that country, there was plenty of open source information that he was not only there voluntarily, he was thought to have helped the enemy influencers in that area with their efforts against the Afghan and coalition security forces.
The one criticism of our administration would be that we gave too much for too little. I do not know, and because of the process used I am not sure who knows, but what deals were rejected before we agreed to the 5 for 1 trade which occurred.
In the end, while it is a thought-provoking piece, I do not think it will do more than that. What Bergdahl is accused of doing is a terrible, terrible act and I empathize with the members of his storied unit as they share their stories and emit strong, negative emotion towards him. I do not need to rethink my feelings on this, nor will I implore others to either. Uncharacteristically, I will smile when he is convicted, hopefully incarcerated for a long, long time.
Having a soldier taken from your unit is the worse feeling imaginable. I would offer it is worse then the feeling of losing a soldier because of the sense of urgency you have to do everything with in your (the individual and the unit) power to recover the soldier back to safety, knowing the entire time that most of these situations end in the death of the captive, often with the loss of other lives in the process.
I would dispute the inference that this was a sensible trade. There was enough information that this person left voluntarily and having served in that specific area of that country, there was plenty of open source information that he was not only there voluntarily, he was thought to have helped the enemy influencers in that area with their efforts against the Afghan and coalition security forces.
The one criticism of our administration would be that we gave too much for too little. I do not know, and because of the process used I am not sure who knows, but what deals were rejected before we agreed to the 5 for 1 trade which occurred.
In the end, while it is a thought-provoking piece, I do not think it will do more than that. What Bergdahl is accused of doing is a terrible, terrible act and I empathize with the members of his storied unit as they share their stories and emit strong, negative emotion towards him. I do not need to rethink my feelings on this, nor will I implore others to either. Uncharacteristically, I will smile when he is convicted, hopefully incarcerated for a long, long time.
(16)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
He didn't skip any ranks, PFC Don Palumbo. It's part of the administrative protocol for soldiers who are held as P.O.W.s -- they are automatically promoted alongside their peers, so that they don't suffer the additional indignity upon their return of being the most senior junior-ranking member of their unit. Bergdahl could not be charged or tried in absentia, so he had to be classified as a P.O.W., not an arrestee.
Kind of grates on you when you think about it, doesn't it? The only way to end the bureaucratic charade was to court martial him, and the only way to do that required negotiating his release.
Kind of grates on you when you think about it, doesn't it? The only way to end the bureaucratic charade was to court martial him, and the only way to do that required negotiating his release.
(0)
(0)
PFC Don Palumbo
1LT William Clardy - Personally I think its stupid. But what IS ,IS. Nothing like the Army I was in 1958-1962. He would have been taken out and shot back then. No crying liberals in those days. Good luck with your career LT. And many thanks for serving our country. I salute you Sir.
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
He couldn't have been taken out and shot until after he was repatriated, PFC Don Palumbo.
In all fairness, the bias in the regulations to treat soldiers who are MIA or captured by the enemy is much better than presuming that they deserted -- it is the case way more often than not. And I confess to preferring that trials in absentia remain a no-no because they void the right to confront one's accusers.
Thanks for the kind wishes, as well, but my career ended during the last millennium. But this retired lieutenant will gladly return the salute of a retired PFC. ;-)
In all fairness, the bias in the regulations to treat soldiers who are MIA or captured by the enemy is much better than presuming that they deserted -- it is the case way more often than not. And I confess to preferring that trials in absentia remain a no-no because they void the right to confront one's accusers.
Thanks for the kind wishes, as well, but my career ended during the last millennium. But this retired lieutenant will gladly return the salute of a retired PFC. ;-)
(0)
(0)
PFC Don Palumbo
Hi Lt, Its nice to know that you retired. I assume honorably. I hope you are enjoying your retirement. As to Bergdahl, I believe that he left a note when he took off. I believe the note said he was leaving. I don't know about you, but I believe that is desertion in the face of the enemy. Thanks for your salute Lt. By the way I'm 100% disabled, I guess that makes me retired.
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
I appreciate the different perspective --- not that it changed mine --- thanks for sharing!
(11)
(0)
8
8
0
For starters, I'm a big fan of the RhinoDen articles.
I think Mr. Puri provides a logical, unemotional argument to a situation that has obviously become very emotionally charged. At the end of the day, Bergdahl was still an American servicemember being held overseas after we sent him there. We had an obligation to return him home, just as we have an obligation to provide him due process.
I think Mr. Puri provides a logical, unemotional argument to a situation that has obviously become very emotionally charged. At the end of the day, Bergdahl was still an American servicemember being held overseas after we sent him there. We had an obligation to return him home, just as we have an obligation to provide him due process.
(8)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google