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
0
0
0
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/
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
That's my half nickel for the day.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
So you are saying you would have been more comfortable risking more American lives in rescue attempt instead of trading five douchebags? How much worthy tactical information could a PFC actually give to the enemy?
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CSM (Join to see) - I didn't mean setting up a special effort just for him until he is recovered. We lost 6 Soldiers trying to recover him, which I don't like....but I can understand. Had he been validly captured instead of defected/deserted, I'd have supported whatever efforts to recover him. We've done the same for individuals like Jessica Lynch and others in the past. Adhering to that same policy would have been fine.
I can't say how much information he actually provided, but I find it strange that they executed higher ranking/higher strategic value targets, but they kept him alive. Those I've talked to said that enemy attacks increased in frequency and accuracy over the weeks following his capture. Whether that was because of him providing information on training, movements, whatever...I can't say. Just seems too coincidental.
v/r,
CPT Butler
I can't say how much information he actually provided, but I find it strange that they executed higher ranking/higher strategic value targets, but they kept him alive. Those I've talked to said that enemy attacks increased in frequency and accuracy over the weeks following his capture. Whether that was because of him providing information on training, movements, whatever...I can't say. Just seems too coincidental.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
My opinion hasn't changed but the story is an interesting one. I will just leave everyone with this to ease the tension....
(0)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
First of all, I wouldn't buy into the buzz that the five turd burglars we traded for are "hall of famers" or Taliban generals. Do we even know how the negotiation went? Did they originally want 10 shit heads for one shit head and we negotiated to five?
Would you rather we sent in Delta or Seals to attempt a rescue and possibly lose more American lives trying to free the dirt bag?
Would you rather we sent in Delta or Seals to attempt a rescue and possibly lose more American lives trying to free the dirt bag?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
CSM (Join to see)
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see)
The capitalization of Soldier, Family, and Civilian is only for internal Army writing. The author is also a male. Meh!
The capitalization of Soldier, Family, and Civilian is only for internal Army writing. The author is also a male. Meh!
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google