Bergdahl: A Different Perspective?

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 05:38:02 -0400

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/

Why You’re Wrong About the President and Bergdahl

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...

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Mar 27 at 2015 6:04 AM

MAJ Jim Steven — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 06:04:27 -0400

I don't think she is saying anything too deep and profound, but I do think she us correct.
Her point about due process, even though it's a slow process, is spot on.
The media gives us just enough facts for us to be emotional.
And being emotional gets us nowhere.
I don't know why he did what he did, and he will pay for it for the rest of his life (try getting hired).
What's done is done and all we can do is use it as a teaching point for our soldiers and children.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Mar 27 at 2015 6:07 AM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 06:07:48 -0400

Authors first point, yes it is, but show me one time in American history where we traded the equivalent of 5 GOs for someone that was a PFC at time of capture?

Second point, yes it. Regardless of his deserted status he needed to be recovered, he is still an American solider, and it would be the only way to properly punish or clear him for the alleged crime of desertion. Go back to point one for why how "we" did it is improper.

Point three, see response to point two.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 6:16 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 06:16:00 -0400

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.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 6:24 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 06:24:23 -0400

I appreciated reading this point of view. Thank you for posting.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Mar 27 at 2015 6:29 AM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 06:29:22 -0400

I appreciate the different perspective --- not that it changed mine --- thanks for sharing!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 6:52 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 06:52:39 -0400

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.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Mar 27 at 2015 7:00 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:00:02 -0400

It certainly is a different perspective. Unfortunatley it is off the mark. The writer seems to be hanging his hat on the FTO status of the Taliban in Afghanistan. A few facts:

The Taliban is not on the FTO list but they were added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) by executive order in July of 2002. We are also offering 10 million for the capture of Mullah Omar as part of the rewards for justice program which fights international terrorism. The National Counterterrorism Center also lists “Taliban Presence in Afghanistan” on its global map of “Terrorist Groups.” It's sister groups, The Haqqani Network and the Pakistan Taliban are both on the FTO. It is believed the Haqqani network was holding Bergdahl for most of the time he was being held.

We are not under any obligation to bring deserters home. They make a decision to desert, it is on them. If we can reasonably get them and bring them back for trial, we should. This deal was beyond the pale and politically motivated. He makes a comparison to an operator being abducted overseas. That is an apples and oranges comparison.

Then, there are lines like this in the article: "So let’s talk about allegations. Allegations are not charges. Charges are not convictions. I am 99.5% convinced that Bergdahl deserted his post".

This article is a slippery attempt at sophistry and disimulation to defend a blatent move, outside of the law, by this administration. We negotiated for the release of 5 known terrorists commanders for an Army PFC deserter.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 7:05 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:05:36 -0400

As much as I would selfishly like to see him be the exception, I agree pretty much entirely with sgt puri. Emotion makes me want the rash decision. But realistically, I think it is not only a better choice, but the ethically right choice, to see due process take its course. To not respect it is no different than his actions in my point of view.

Great find CSM Private RallyPoint Member . Thanks for sharing it.

Response by SFC Collin McMillion made Mar 27 at 2015 7:36 AM

SFC Collin McMillion — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:36:10 -0400

He deserted his post during combat and cost others their lives, their live mattered, they are the hero's. This dirt bag deserves nothing from the government except a fair trial. He had his own agenda and political or otherwise it was wrong to trade for him. In my opinion he give up his citizenship when he deserted. We did more than our part looking for someone thought to have been captured. To me he is not an American in any sense of the word!

Response by MSG David Chappell made Mar 27 at 2015 8:01 AM

MSG David Chappell — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:01:33 -0400

First trading a soldier for prisoners I can agree with HOWEVER we traded the equivalent of 5 generals for a private. We should have not agreed to them there are hundreds of others we could have looked at. Would you free Charles Manson? Hitler or Jack the Ripper?
I hear we negotiated, who did? Did congress approve of this where they notified.
Regardless of the rank we don't give the enemy a trade that benefits them and not 5 times.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Mar 27 at 2015 8:37 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:37:26 -0400

I think we all need to take a step back and evaluate our collective responses to this entire situation. While I'm happy to see charges finally leveled against Bergdhal, I think it is just as important that we remain respectful to Due Process. There are a lot of things we as the general public do not know or totally understand yet. And while you don't have to agree with the trade that eventually brought him back under US control, as the article states, trading of people for our own has happened in every conflict we ever been a part of. While I don't fully agree with it or the way it went down, it is something that has been done in the past and you'll never see a "like for like" trade of prisoners. Keep in mind, its like when sport teams trade players, you aren't going to trade your starting QB and expect to get the other teams starting QB, most of the time you get some 1st or 2nd string player and a draft pick.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 9:25 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:25:25 -0400

My views did not question the Governments involvement in his release. He (through whatever means was a "POW") came home.

I have strong feelings for his family who will continue to go through pain of his actions. I feel even stronger for the families of the Service Men and Women who lost their children, fathers and spouses due to this guys actions.

Thank you for sharing the article.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 9:54 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:54:16 -0400

That was a well written article. It did put some things in perspective. I, as the author, have no sympathy for him, but I do have some for his family.

Response by MSgt Charles Johnson made Mar 27 at 2015 10:10 AM

MSgt Charles Johnson — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:10:51 -0400

My Nephew was in his unit. He had the bed next to him overseas. He and his platoon frequently talk about this and have for years. I've been monitoring their conversations.

There isn't enough ammo in the US Army for how they feel about this deserter. What you will learn in this trial will get you feeling the same.

His actions were well documented before he was traded. The President was well aware of them.

In my opinion;

This was a purely political stunt. Done for gain which backfired. Ill conceived.

Trading for a deserter, who now doesn't like his new home, "ISN'T" the same as trading for an honorable service member. (Prior to and during WWII they would have shot him on the battlefield for cowardice. Yes, I know there were a couple they didn't shoot. They should have.)

Trading 5 top men (now trying to return to the battle) isn't acceptable to the public nor the military. This has backfired and the President is receiving his just due "politically" for his actions. Just because they lacked the evidence to "try" these individuals doesn't mean they should summarily just let them go. All of us know gaining that evidence is an almost impossible task.

We are still at war.

This is a war of "beliefs" not a war against the Taliban. If you aid and abet the enemy, it doesn't matter if your a Disney character, your the enemy in this war.

Yes, this is emotional and I don't care.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 10:58 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:58:54 -0400

I agree completely with this position.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Mar 27 at 2015 11:28 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:28:26 -0400

I still think we should wait for the Military Court to do it's job. I will not post my personal opinion until Court is over.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 11:29 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:29:32 -0400

Thanks for sharing this article CSM Private RallyPoint Member. There was only one issue I had with it. The author stated that:

" 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."

This is overly simplified not exactly factually accurate. The US never recognized that Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government. According to the BBC and most other literature I've ever seen on the Taliban, "Pakistan was also one of only three countries, along with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which recognised the Taliban when they were in power in Afghanistan from the mid-1990s until 2001." (linked BBC article Nov 2013) It is true that we never labeled the Taliban as a Foreign Terrorist Organization before 9/11, but that was because the Taliban never had interests in operating outside of Afghanistan and the largely autonomous Pakistani tribal areas. They still don't have interests beyond this region and I am sure that plays a factor in their not being labeled as a FTO. However, Canada, Kazakhstan, Russia, and the UAE currently label them as such.

Bush and Clinton never formally recognized the Taliban, but we always provided humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. The US and the UN were duped by the Taliban when they claimed to have reduced opium harvesting to virtually zero. This wasn't exactly true (see CATO Institute link), but it did get praise from the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs and resulted in a $43M grant.

"Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban’s proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees." (CATO Institute Aug 2002).

This one time grant that resulted from a (suspect/fake) drug-eradication program and our continuous humanitarian aid doesn't go as far as the near sponsorship that is implied by this article.

Other than that, I agreed with most all of what the author said. I have always wondered if Bergdahl might have had an undiagnosed mental condition/issue that worsened when he deployed. I agree that it is no excuse, but in a court martial it could be possibly be considered a mitigating circumstance. I am honestly trying to keep an open mind and remain unemotional and objective about the whole situation. I don't have a dog in this fight personally, but I feel for the families of those who died searching for him. His DUSTWUN status made life a lot more dangerous for lots of other people. I trust the military justice system to sort this out and I will try to refrain from passing judgement before they do.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11451718
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-washington-funded-taliban
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations

Who are the Taliban? - BBC News

BBC News looks at the history of the Taliban movement in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Mar 27 at 2015 11:46 AM

SGT James Elphick — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:46:31 -0400

Though it has been an unpopular opinion I have been arguing these points for some time, glad it is finally gaining some traction. He is our soldier to punish for his actions and leaving him behind could have set a dangerous precedent. And though I would still like to see him at the business end of a squad of rifles, I would not put him there without the due process of law.

Response by SSG Dwight Amey MSA, MSL, BS, AS made Mar 27 at 2015 2:17 PM

SSG Dwight Amey MSA, MSL, BS, AS — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:17:00 -0400

CSM Mike Oldsen, This article is a good example of how war is not cut and dry, black or white activity. We have the obvious clear points of it, kill the enemy into submission at all cost. This "at all cost" is the thing that turns reality upside down, in my view.

Our soldiers that get sent into combat with mental illness needs extra monitoring (if they must go). I understand that we all have our limitations, but leaving the safety of a FOB alone is suicide, in my view.

I would never do it. I have been offered by a Iraq General (2011) my officers were Advising and Assisting offered to take me to his neighborhood to prove how secure his home was being a sheik. Just the suggestion sent chills up my spine because the only home I wanted to go to without my fellow soldiers was in Kansas.

Obama. Well I don't agree with a lot of things he did. I will put it like this. Okay my son wonders off in the woods. I cannot find him for 30 minutes. When I finally find him I am happy but then must punish. Then I would punish him for not listening to me when I tell him not to go outside alone.

Thanks for your service.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Mar 27 at 2015 11:46 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 23:46:19 -0400

Thanks for posting this CSM Private RallyPoint Member. I think if another member who wasn't as respected tried to post this it would have been a disaster. When the media gets a whiff of something controversial, they plaster it all over the media and it gets tried in the courts of public opinion. People have to have their day in court, regardless of what we know, what we think we know, and how we feel. That being said, I'm dying to see what his defense will be.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 11:57 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 23:57:32 -0400

On the plus side, his defense is going with the fact he left his post to travel to another base camp to report issues within his own unit.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2015 12:06 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 00:06:27 -0400

The author is anti-veteran IMHO. To gain credibility here, the author seems to be one of those anti-Merican kind of people. Out!

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2015 12:53 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 00:53:19 -0400

Mental Illness earned him a life sentence....

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2015 1:16 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 01:16:36 -0400

The author failed to capitalize the word "Soldier" there I cannot understand any of what she is saying. So I will just disagree with the title.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2015 2:43 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 02:43:40 -0400

CSM Oldsen,

Agreed, wholeheartedly! Hearsay has brought us to our knees, yet we refuse to acknowledge or admit our own wrongdoing. The masses want justice on their terms, to rationalize their own opinions and agendas. Very few know the truth, the real truth. I agree with the exchange. Not matter the action or treasonous offense, we should not leave anyone behind. Evaluation and judgement will be made, but it will not necessarily be in the expedience that is desired; but it will happen. When things dont go the way we want, we have a bad habit of biting the hand that feeds, and that is what is happening here regarding the decision for exchange. A lot of us dont realize this, but employment by the government and opposing it at the same time come with dire consequences. It's best to keep our mouths shut and let justice take its course, appropriately.

Let's not forget that we put the Taliban in power in the first place. Remember the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 80s?

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2015 5:37 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 05:37:12 -0400

The condescension of the author notwithstanding, in this man's opinion the article is pretty on-point. If I were the one doing the president's calculus, I would argue that giving up elderly statesmen with more symbolic than real operational value is a better investment of resources than the lives of the operators who would have been put into harms way trying to conduct a rescue, assuming that we were even able to get the intelligence required to plan it. Doing it this way arguably also makes it easier to proceed with charging him and settling his case. Witness all of the arguments against having trading prisoners for a "known" traitor - imagine if a rescue were launched, and lives more valuable to us than the prisoners' were put on the line to secure Bergdahl's release! That would have been a fine example of 'throwing good money after bad' especially if it resulted in mission failure or involved casualties beyond Bergdahl's value.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2015 9:03 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 09:03:05 -0400

I think what most of us are pissed at is the fact the POTUS and Susan Rice came out saying how Bergdahl served with honor and dignity and all that other BS. If they didn't know, then there is some serious issues within the DA/DOD/POTUS, then again, POTUS may come out and say he didn't know he was a deserter until the charges were brought up and he saw that on TV. And I think the sentiment is that we all want Bergdahl to receive the maximum punishment, I personally do, is it realistic? probably not because we understand the legality of the situation and Due Process is what it is, a process.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 28 at 2015 9:21 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 09:21:17 -0400

I'd say the article nails it...

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Mar 28 at 2015 10:52 AM

1LT William Clardy — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 10:52:17 -0400

First, let me make clear that I would not want to be a member of any panel deciding Sergeant Bergdahl's fate. I am actually more than content to delegate weighing his deeds on the scales of justice to somebody else.

That said, I disagree fundamentally with Sergeant Putri on one very significant point: I do not believe that the President of the United States has a sacred duty to recover captured troops. The *only* duty of a President which might be called sacred is his duty to the Constitution -- all else is secondary, or falls under the rubric of "sensible politics".

As soldiers, we talk about being willing to put our lives on the line for our country. Most of us think of that only in terms of being killed, but the real truth -- especially with the advances which have made once-fatal injuries survivable -- is that many soldiers wind up sacrificing their life by enduring unending pain and misery. Whether it is making do with no legs or never quite getting past the nightmares, the remainder of that soldier's life was sacrificed to some degree.

In more cases than most would like to admit, that ongoing misery took place in a foreign prison. As P.O.W.s were repatriated from North Vietnam, it was known that there were other prisoners who were still being held. As much as I detest Henry "Decent Interval" Kissinger, the math of staying silent on the left-behinds made sense in terms of getting the greatest number back that was practical (openly attacking North Vietnam to rescue the others was not a practical, or even politically viable, option). I have seen indications that we made a similar calculation during the repatriations which took place in Korea after the truce took effect.

Emotionally, it's a horrible thing, but it's in the same moral arena as a commander's obligation to his troops to not expend their lives just to recover the remains of a soldier known to be dead. And, as soldiers, a large part of our raison d'être requires operating in the arena of painful choices.

Response by SSG Stacy Carter made Mar 30 at 2015 5:04 AM

SSG Stacy Carter — Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:04:50 -0400

Okay, my initial response upon hearing that President Obama traded 5 top commanders from Gitmo for Bergdahl was absolute furry.. I could not believe that these 5 commanders were traded for a deserter. Though I still do not agree with the decision to trade so many for so little, I unequivocally agree that we should have made some sort of deal. Just not one that was so lopsided in favor of our enemy!

I am glad that the Army has decided to pursue a Courts Martial against Bergdahl for his purported crimes. I also hope that this is a transparent and fair trial.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 31 at 2015 10:07 AM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:07:44 -0400

This is an interesting perspective, and one I did not expect to see. I can see the point of view of returning captured government officials, but as they were labeled within a terrorist leadership, and the general lack of a central government in Afghanistan, I feel that point my be moot.

No matter who these individuals were, they had attacked us in the US and were high ranking individuals within their organization. Trading five of these individuals for one soldier, especially one that was a possible deserter is an unacceptable trade. We should not be in the habit of trading in that manner for soldiers, even those in honorable serving situations as it gives more power to the enemy as we develop these precedences. Besides, I feel that any soldier, serving honorably, would understand being left in such a situation until they could be properly rescued or retrieved.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2015 8:57 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 08:57:46 -0400

The article has some merit, and the facts surrounding Bergdahl are completely unknown other than what has been reported in the media and through reports from his unit and teammates. A media that is problematic at best, would you all agree? Even Fox gets it wrong at times. I believe in the fundamental principles of or Constitution, with that the UCMJ and everyone get their day in court. We have to believe that this process is a fair and just system. Bergdahl will get his day in court as well. My only desire is the political pressure from the White House allow for true justice to be served.

As for the trade of five terrorists, now that’s all another issue. The martyrs they will become for “keeping the faith” could be more dangerous than we can imagine. When these guys go active again, and you are naive to think otherwise, what level of destruction could they create through recruitment and ultimate resolve but those who will follow out of pure revenge? The word “revenge” appears at least four times in the Koran, and from a strategic viewpoint this will have worldwide consequences.

Response by SSgt Michael Orcutt made May 7 at 2015 3:16 PM

SSgt Michael Orcutt — Thu, 07 May 2015 15:16:32 -0400

My opinion hasn't changed but the story is an interesting one. I will just leave everyone with this to ease the tension....

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2015 3:47 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 May 2015 15:47:07 -0400

Had we captured him during a raid or other strike, I'd have felt better. I'm not in a position to criticize President Obama's decisions and I wholly support Bergdahl's right to a trial. However, I have read a large amount of information and talked to others that support the idea that he not only deserted, but also that he provided tactically relevant information to the enemy. It raises hairs on my neck that with 11 years of war, he is the ONLY POW kept alive for an extended period of time, and yet he was a PFC. Contractors were beheaded and placed on spikes in Baghdad, NCOs were beheaded in Afghanistan....but some lowly PFC is held alive for several years?

There may be benefits that we are not knowing about to retrieving him. Additionally, maybe there is information of his innocence that we don't know about. I don't lose the sleep over it, but I decidedly dislike the idea of negotiating for him when we have an American Marine in an Iranian prison that does NOT show evidence of desertion and possible treason that has not experienced the same media attention.

Probably the one major point that I agree with from this article: Nobody gives two shits about our opinion. We all have one, but ultimately the truth is coming to light and it is my definite hope that justice will be served for him and for the Soldiers that died trying to recover him.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2015 3:50 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 May 2015 15:50:13 -0400

First thing first the Bergdahl case to my knowledge is not even completed to see if he is found guilty of dessertion. What happen to American justice innocent until proven guilty. Too many are convicting him based on what the media says and not on all the evidence that we are not privy too. If he is found guilty then I agree he is a dirt bag if not then so be it.

Second be mad at the president I totally agree with what he did as stated above he is an American weather good or bad and we have done this for hundreds of years.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 7 at 2015 5:50 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 07 May 2015 17:50:06 -0400

His argument that the 5 were ordinary Afghanis is weak. Saying Clinton and Bush did not say the Taliban were Terrorist during their tenure or part of their tenure as Presidents makes them innocuous is dreadfully weak.

Bergdhal deserted plain and simple and was charged as such.

Nothing changes.

Response by CSM David Heidke made May 8 at 2015 10:33 AM

CSM David Heidke — Fri, 08 May 2015 10:33:32 -0400

How's this for perspective.

A kid is car surfing, and as a result his car crashes he flies off the roof and breaks half the bones in his body and requires years of physical therapy to wipe his butt let alone walk.

Do I feel sorry for him because of the physical shape he's in? Just a little, because he did it to himself by doing something colossally stupid.

That's my point of view.

Response by SSG Keith Cashion made Oct 13 at 2015 11:41 AM

SSG Keith Cashion — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:41:56 -0400

Nothing mean intended here, but with all of the M.I. assets we have at our disposal (Hell we found Bin Laden), we couldn't find this Soldier? Unfortunately, no one wants to admit it, there is all kinds of undue political influence surrounding this case, and I think there are a lot of people who do not want to make that decision. I think following the law on this one, has people scared. Do the right thing, and then everyone says poor, poor Bergdahl. Do the wrong thing...start to see people who just throw there hands up, and say, It's ok to be a deserter, we will slap you on the hand (not too hard though), and send you on your merry way. Soldier has an issue, he thinks, that this should be sent up the chain of command....ok, tell me where he informed the chain of command that he would like to speak to the Gen.? Hhhmmm, I guess there was no, internet, no phone, no mail service or radios, chaplain, JAG officer, IG, at the FOB he was located that he could relay the need to speak to the General. So he decided that he would just take a quick 19 mile jog (I think that was the distance I heard to the next FOB) at night, and be back by morning. Do I know all of the facts? No, Do I want to? No. Forget why, forget his mental illness and go back to basics. We are taught from the first day of Basic, that there are rules, and consequences for everything we do in the military. We are briefed, time and time again on Rules of War, Rules of Engagement, Actions that can be taken against you if you fail to follow orders by the MCM. Plain and simple, he violated Orders and the UCMJ and should be punished accordingly. We have all said at one time or another, this operation is stupid, the commander is going in the wrong directions, this is not safe....but we either voiced it the right way or kept it to ourselves. Here is a question, and probably will never know the answer too, did he let anyone in his chain of command know he had concerns and wanted to talk to the General about it?

That's my half nickel for the day.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Oct 15 at 2015 1:27 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 01:27:30 -0400

Okay, so we can agree with the President having a duty to return captured soldiers home. Then explain why Obama did not weigh in and use his powers to get Sgt Tahmooressi back from Mexico... explain why he negotiated a treaty with Iran (when that isn't his job) and didn't get the Americans held captive there as part of the deal... Something really smells bad with that argument.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/24/meet-the-four-americans-held-hostage-by-iran/

Meet the Four Americans Held Hostage By Iran

The nuclear deal with Iran does not affect the four Americans being held hostage by the Iranian government. Meet them here.

Response by PFC Don Palumbo made Apr 14 at 2016 10:13 PM

PFC Don Palumbo — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 22:13:24 -0400

I cant disagree with you more. This President has failed the Military and the entire country from day one and does not stop his nonsense. You are right about getting a soldier released from captivity. However he does not give a damn thing about the military nor the soldiers its made up with. What happened at Bengazi.??? Did the Preisdent leave them to get killed.??? What was that all about.??? Who is trying to force communism down our throats.??? I don't like this guy because I recognize who he is. He is certainly not my president.