23
23
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 >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 39
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
SSG Stacy Carter
Fury is definitely a good word, I think many of us felt the same. I think five for one was a pretty crappy trade but, I don't know all the facts of the negotiation. I do believe five is better than risking even one more American life in a "rescue" attempt.
I don't think the trial is going to be as transparent as we would hope. Defense has already "leaked" some details and I think we will be in for more of the same.
Thanks for the comment!
Fury is definitely a good word, I think many of us felt the same. I think five for one was a pretty crappy trade but, I don't know all the facts of the negotiation. I do believe five is better than risking even one more American life in a "rescue" attempt.
I don't think the trial is going to be as transparent as we would hope. Defense has already "leaked" some details and I think we will be in for more of the same.
Thanks for the comment!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
CSM (Join to see)
I agree with the article being a little condescending, seems it was probably written more for a civilian to read. I agree with the "rescue" point for sure!
I agree with the article being a little condescending, seems it was probably written more for a civilian to read. I agree with the "rescue" point for sure!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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?
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?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The author is anti-veteran IMHO. To gain credibility here, the author seems to be one of those anti-Merican kind of people. Out!
(1)
(0)
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.
(1)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
A pretty good move by the defense if you ask me. They can definitely roll that into a mental health defense.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Especially, CSM, since he had left his weapon and armor behind. What person in their normal thought process would do that?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Thanks for sharing this article CSM (Join to see). 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
" 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.
(1)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir - I completely agree with you. The authors point is a little sketchy in regards to the Taliban as a legitimate government. With that being said, we have been recognizing "shadow Governors/governments" almost since the beginning of the war. All my Soldiers knew who the "legitimate" leader of the Arghandab district but, they also knew who the "shadow" leader was. We (military/politicians) have been negotiating with the "shadow" government of Afghanistan all along.
Thanks for the comment, good stuff!
Sir - I completely agree with you. The authors point is a little sketchy in regards to the Taliban as a legitimate government. With that being said, we have been recognizing "shadow Governors/governments" almost since the beginning of the war. All my Soldiers knew who the "legitimate" leader of the Arghandab district but, they also knew who the "shadow" leader was. We (military/politicians) have been negotiating with the "shadow" government of Afghanistan all along.
Thanks for the comment, good stuff!
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google