Rp logo flat shadow
Command Post What is this?
Posted on Nov 3, 2017
MAJ Montgomery Granger
102K
1.63K
529
318
318
0
Avatar feed
Responses: 239
SPC Christopher Perrien
2
2
0
(2)
Comment
(0)
SGT Randall Smith
SGT Randall Smith
>1 y
I don't even know how he was made a Sgt. I knew men in the Army for 3 years that were still PFC or Spec 4's. Just staying in did not make you promotable.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Founder
2
2
0
Maybe Bergdahl and Chelsea Manning can join forces and create a comedy team....Tranny and Coward Comedy Hour.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO3 Grant Skiles
2
2
0
This is wrong on every front. He is a deserter who collaborated with the enemy. He left his post and the result was men being killed and permanently disabled looking for him. Finally our TRAITOR President trades some of the worst international criminals and murders for this jerk. The Judge should be ashamed and everyone higher than him should give him a unfit report. He should NEVER be a Military Judge in any case again.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SP5 Jerry Mucha
2
2
0
Take him back to Afgan and let him remain there. He deserted to be with them, let him return
(2)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
MAJ Montgomery Granger
>1 y
Hooah!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Psychological Operations Officer
2
2
0
Here's some interesting background info from 2016 about what the 15-6 investigation found, and some quotes from various people on both sides. It won't change anyone's minds, I'm sure, but can shed some light on why this was a more complex decision about sentencing than many think it was.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/05/serial-bowe-bergdahl-mystery-pow-419962.html
(2)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
MAJ Montgomery Granger
>1 y
Thank you for sharing this, Sir. It is important information, and I had read this before. It has a seriously pro-Bergdahl slant, however. The manipulation by the writer is obvious, especially at the end, mentioning Christian forgiveness and doing the best one can in captivity. Christian forgiveness does not exist without repentance. In other words, for Bergdahl to receive forgiveness he must first acknowledge that what he did was wrong, apologize for it, and then promise never to do it again. I don't know if he did that or not. As for doing the best one can in captivity, there have been some famous POW's who don't want us to know the context of what their best was. Sen. John McCain is a famous example who has had his military records sealed regarding his behavior while in captivity, and there is a reason for that. How many Taliban were interviewed for this article? How many of the purported "facts" while Bergdahl was a captive have been corroborated by neutral witnesses, or even any witnesses? I have heard he was a heroin addict looking for a fix. No smoking gun there, either, but are there just as many witnesses who confirm his side of the story? I believe there are three sides to every story, yours, mine and the truth. We may never know the truth about the Bergdahl case, but one thing is true, his punishment did not fit the crime.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Capt Tom Brown
Capt Tom Brown
>1 y
It was interesting to read the other side of the story, even two years after it appeared in Newsweek. Judging from what lengths the Army & US gvt went to cover up the Tillman affair, one shouldn't be to surprised at reading this. The campaign of command influence, misinformation and slanted and untrue information against Berghdal helped to convict him in the court of public opinion and I was ready to join in the lynch mob. From this article alone it appears that Berghdal got his opportunity to fight the Taliban-types while a POW, more so than he ever did as a frontline soldier. He seemed to endure treatment every bit as inhumane and brutal as did those held POW by the NVA in Viet Nam. He even came back with intel and a clear account of what happened.
(0)
Reply
(0)
COL Jon Lopey
COL Jon Lopey
6 y
Michael: Thank you for posting the information. It is helpful but it still does not answer all of the questions concerning his case. Having served during the Viet Nam Era, Haiti, Bosnia, OEF, and OIF, I am not convinced that his conduct was commendable in any way. He may have changed his mind after his capture and figured out he really screwed-up trying to trust the Taliban, but bottom line to me, based on my experience and the evidence, Berghahl deserted his fellow Airborne troopers in wartime. He left a firebase without his weapon and jeopardized the lives of those sent to rescue him - There is evidence his actions contributed to deaths and grievous wounds perpetrated against our warriors in uniform. He disparaged his commanders and leadership and used that as an excuse. To me, there was no excuse for leaving his post - He had numerous avenues to travel to accomplish his goals if what he wanted to do was right an alleged wrong. Many of the claims cannot be substantiated. I personally think it is unlikely he would have survived had he not cooperated with his captors at least to some degree. I agree there could be some psychological issues and possible character flaws in this man but what he did was inexcusable. I hope he finds some type of truth and solace in his life, despite what he did. I can forgive him but I will never condone his actions as reasonable under the current circumstances. Thanks again for the post. Jon
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Christopher Perrien
2
2
0
Edited >1 y ago
Best check for a "Son of Sam" clause in that verdict. If not, raise hell. No idea if North Carolina law includes one or how NC views dishonorable discharges(are they a felony there). , or how that interacts with military verdicts.
(2)
Comment
(0)
COL Steph Browne
COL Steph Browne
>1 y
I do not believe thereis a Son of Sam provision in the UCMJ, state law does not apply, thus it is not something can be part of a court martial,sentence. Whether the charge is a felony depends on the authorized maximum sentence not the nature of any adjudged discharge.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SPC Christopher Perrien
SPC Christopher Perrien
>1 y
TY Col, my mind is slightly oftrack because of pain but I will say this.
If "Son of Sam " doess not apply , Bergdal has won the lottery, becuase he will sell the movie and bok rights to his "story" for many millions and may make royaties off of any use of the same. Sad day, when some criminal(is this a deserter/traitor) is now set for life . Sad :(

For those who don't know "Son of Sam " clause , is a law that forbids people like serial killers from selling their life story or benefiting from their crimes. Many states hold that if you had a felony from a crime you cannot benefit from your crime(that is what is know as a Son of Sam clause". so it is of import if Carolina has one , if the trial puts jurisdiction in to that state or if their is something in the actual sentencing. Does not appear to be so Bergdal can benefit from his "crime"
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Christopher Hayden
2
2
0
Colonel Nance saw 14 years and thought "Yeah, the same thing as a guy who pisses hot a few times sounds about fair enough and even with 14 years."
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
1st Lt Padre Dave Poedel
1
1
0
Didn’t he desert his unit as a Private? Giving him the rank of a NCO is “time in grade”? Being a NCO is an achievement based on a record of service and proficiency……just sayin’……..
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
1st Lt Mark Marshall
1
1
0
I agree and know that. It would hav been a hard sell publically to get a different result. Though the view of the public should not be the main concern it seems that since Vietnam that public opinion is given greater emphasis. It seems telling that there was greater uproar formaking the point that he had suffered then acknowledgement of the date of true POWS state. In my opinion it is hard for me to reconcile the two. More should be done to at the very least keep others from engaging in the same actions. Keep the faith. We are better than this and the actions of a majority of soldiers,airman,marines, and seaman are a testiment to that fact.
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
MAJ Montgomery Granger
>1 y
Right, so I like that you are holistic in your thinking, that one thing affects another. But at what point do you protect the integrity of the unit about that of the individual, especially when the individual puts the unit at risk through disloyal behavior. Among the Army values, Loyalty is at the top of the list. Without it, we are a mediocre force with questionable effectiveness as a fighting unit. The psychological health and well being of the UNIT is just as important as it's technical skill and ability, for without effective moral and confidence, even the best soldiers can be beaten. We have individual standards of behavior in order to protect unit cohesiveness. We teach this through punishment of the whole for the actions of the one in Basic Training. However, at about Phase III of Basic Training, we start to transition to individual punishment. The lesson is that in battle, there will be times that when ONE person fails, the unit fails, e.g. guard duty. If the guard falls asleep, allowing the enemy to infiltrate and then kill members of the unit, ONE person's failure causes the demise of the unit. Conversely, if your battle buddy messes up by exposing himself unnecessarily during battle and then gets his head blown off, that hurts, but it doesn't necessarily seal the fate of the whole unit or mission. What Bergdahl did was an individual mistake until he was captured. At that point, he became an enemy asset. Unfound, he could be assumed dead, but there was a unit responsibility to attempt to find him, which caused unnecessary risk to unit members who wouldn't necessarily be taking those risks had Bergdahl stayed with the unit. That additional or unnecessary exposure to the enemy in the search for Bergdahl cased unnecessary deaths and injuries. Also, an assumption could be made that Bergdahl was aiding the enemy with information about unit names, sizes, strengths, capabilities, locations, tendencies, ets., all things that could get people killed. What is the VALUE of that behavior, negative value? Is the threat to the unit more or less important than the threat to one deserter? We must value the safety of the unit above the individual. Accomplishing the mission is the objective and has priority, but the SURVIVAL of the unit in order to accomplish the mission (security) is MOST important. Commanders must consider security above all else or they are INEFFECTIVE and might as well be dead. Logically, then the Army has a survival obligation to PREVENT desertion. One way to prevent it is deterrence. Harsh penalties are one way to deter the behavior. But if the behavior is not chronic, normal or usual, the punishment should fit the crime. Damage assessment should be done, and the offender punished based upon the bad things that happened due to the desertion. Soldier killed searching for him? Then manslaughter charges. Equipment and assets lost in the search? Then fines and jail time assessed. Is discharge enough or appropriate? Perhaps, perhaps not. Remember, the punishment should fit the crime. Punishment should equal damage. Each case judged on its own merit. Due process afforded. UCMJ applied. Should capital punishment be considered? Yes, if the damage or trends indicate it.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Vicki White
1
1
0
The little scumbag should be at Leavenworth. Just sayin...
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close