Posted on Mar 26, 2015
I have heard some refer to not leaving a soldier behind, regarding Bergdahl. Should "Never leave a fallen comrade" apply to deserters?
9.17K
22
21
1
1
0
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 11
I can't imagine leaving any American in enemy hands for any reason. Getting Bergdahl back was a good thing in my opinion because now he has been charged with desertion and when he is convicted they will make an example of him. I only wish good soldiers hadn't been lost looking for him. I don't like the fact that we gave up five prisoners for him, but at least now he will stand trial for each of the soldiers that died as a direct result of his actions.
(0)
(1)
SPC William Scissom
Even with your well thought out and eloquently put response to my opinion I am still under the impression that never leave a man behind applies to all soldiers. When Bergdahl deserted no one knew that he had deserted, sure there was speculation but isn't it better to recover the deserter and punish him rather than allow him to remain with and aid the enemy? I hate that good soldiers lost their lives as a result of the actions of a deserter and that just makes me want to see him punished even more, as opposed to allowing him to kill more Americans as an enemy combatant.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
It's ideal to not leave people behind. However, the military is not the peace corps. When people sign up, they have signed up even to the finality of death.
It was pretty apparent to members of Pv1 Bergdahl's group that he had left voluntarily. It would have been better for him to become an enemy combatant than to have traded in reasonably high value targets in exchange for a worthless private who seems to have chosen to go to the other side.
Remarkable how much debate/effort there has been about saving a worthless dirtbag like Bergdahl, but hardly a word goes out other than a small snippet in the army times about spec ops people that consistently die in the line of duty.
If you think trading five worthwhile acquisitions for a dirtbag deserter was a good deal, you must be a pog.
It was pretty apparent to members of Pv1 Bergdahl's group that he had left voluntarily. It would have been better for him to become an enemy combatant than to have traded in reasonably high value targets in exchange for a worthless private who seems to have chosen to go to the other side.
Remarkable how much debate/effort there has been about saving a worthless dirtbag like Bergdahl, but hardly a word goes out other than a small snippet in the army times about spec ops people that consistently die in the line of duty.
If you think trading five worthwhile acquisitions for a dirtbag deserter was a good deal, you must be a pog.
(0)
(1)
SPC William Scissom
If you would have actually read my original statement where I said I don't like that we gave up five prisoners you would realize that I do not see it as a worthwhile acquisition, on the other hand an enemy combatant that is able to cross into America and move around unnoticed, like every other white guy in the country, is a serious threat. As for questioning MY service record because I disagree with you? Well I proudly served in B 2/3 FA, which of course was doing infantry work in 2003 and 2004, four hours after the IED blew up in my face I was on guard duty then I went on patrol again, My point is that no one that ever served with me has questioned my dedication. For an officer of the United States Army to stoop to such derogatory remarks about someone he know absolutely nothing about, that's weak Petey I feel for the soldiers who have to serve under you.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next

Bergdahl
Desertion
POW/MIA
