• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you approve of this action?

Read Hypothetical Below

  • I would have approved of that method.

    Votes: 2 9.5%

  • I would not have approved of that method.

    Votes: 17 81.0%

  • I agree that we should not leave an American behind

    Votes: 8 38.1%

  • Prior to the past few weeks, I would have said "Yes, we should try to bring back Bergdahl"

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    21
Zyphlin

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,710
Reaction score
35,485
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Let's take a hypothetical here.

The Administration has established that it's wrong and offensive to leave any American behind. Prior to this whole prisoner swap people both on the left and right seemed to think it would be a good thing to get Bowe Bergdahl back. So, here's my question.

What if instead of a prisoner swap, we had a surge. Troop levels in Afghanistan were ramped up back into peak numbers, with an aggressive and forceful ground and air effort against the taliban in an effort to locate and fight our way to Bergdahl and free him.

Would you have been approving of that action in order to not leave an American behind? Or would you have had complaints over the method?
 
Zyphlin said:
Let's take a hypothetical here.

The Administration has established that it's wrong and offensive to leave any American behind. Prior to this whole prisoner swap people both on the left and right seemed to think it would be a good thing to get Bowe Bergdahl back. So, here's my question.

What if instead of a prisoner swap, we had a surge. Troop levels in Afghanistan were ramped up back into peak numbers, with an aggressive and forceful ground and air effort against the taliban in an effort to locate and fight our way to Bergdahl and free him.

Would you have been approving of that action in order to not leave an American behind? Or would you have had complaints over the method?
Click to expand...

Before I can vote, I'd have to have info if the POW was caught as a fighter or deserter. A legitimate POW, I'm all for a small special forces operation instead of any exchange action.
 
Zyphlin said:
Let's take a hypothetical here.

The Administration has established that it's wrong and offensive to leave any American behind. Prior to this whole prisoner swap people both on the left and right seemed to think it would be a good thing to get Bowe Bergdahl back. So, here's my question.

What if instead of a prisoner swap, we had a surge. Troop levels in Afghanistan were ramped up back into peak numbers, with an aggressive and forceful ground and air effort against the taliban in an effort to locate and fight our way to Bergdahl and free him.

Would you have been approving of that action in order to not leave an American behind? Or would you have had complaints over the method?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't approve of that method, mainly because it would have put troops back into harms way. I have no problem with the President's decision to get Bergdahl back. That is something we should do because until he has a chance to comment on his behalf and a trial or investigation, he is innocent until proven guilty and is an American Soldier.

What I have a problem with is he went thoguh all this for one soldier in Afghanistan, yet hasn't tried the same way for the military member sitting in a Mexican jail whom doesn't have nearly the contraversary as this Bergdahl. That is my issue with all of this.
 
I could not approve of the method without understand the goals and objectives as well as a timeline. What are we surging for exactly?
 
You want to re-escalate the ENTIRE conflict and undoubtedly cost many American (and probably lots of innocent Afghanistani) lives to try and find one soldier?

Ahhh...no.

He volunteered for military duty...he knew the risks...being captured and held for years was one of them.

Sure, you try and get him back if you can...but not at all costs.
 
Zyphlin said:
Let's take a hypothetical here.

The Administration has established that it's wrong and offensive to leave any American behind. Prior to this whole prisoner swap people both on the left and right seemed to think it would be a good thing to get Bowe Bergdahl back. So, here's my question.

What if instead of a prisoner swap, we had a surge. Troop levels in Afghanistan were ramped up back into peak numbers, with an aggressive and forceful ground and air effort against the taliban in an effort to locate and fight our way to Bergdahl and free him.

Would you have been approving of that action in order to not leave an American behind? Or would you have had complaints over the method?
Click to expand...

If that was the only option to get them back, then I could get behind such a move. However, the odds of that type of action being the only option is remote. I do think we owe it to our troops to do whatever it takes to recover them. That does not mean there is no limits to what we should do to get them back, that limit should be pretty high.
 
My preference would be to use some sort of black ops.
 
Zyphlin said:
Let's take a hypothetical here.

The Administration has established that it's wrong and offensive to leave any American behind. Prior to this whole prisoner swap people both on the left and right seemed to think it would be a good thing to get Bowe Bergdahl back. So, here's my question.

What if instead of a prisoner swap, we had a surge. Troop levels in Afghanistan were ramped up back into peak numbers, with an aggressive and forceful ground and air effort against the taliban in an effort to locate and fight our way to Bergdahl and free him.

Would you have been approving of that action in order to not leave an American behind? Or would you have had complaints over the method?
Click to expand...

I voted yes because it would have put troops back into Afghanistan with a chance of giving additional support and breathing room for the Afghan people. Finding Berghdal would be a bonus.
 
Zyphlin said:
Let's take a hypothetical here.

The Administration has established that it's wrong and offensive to leave any American behind. Prior to this whole prisoner swap people both on the left and right seemed to think it would be a good thing to get Bowe Bergdahl back. So, here's my question.

What if instead of a prisoner swap, we had a surge. Troop levels in Afghanistan were ramped up back into peak numbers, with an aggressive and forceful ground and air effort against the taliban in an effort to locate and fight our way to Bergdahl and free him.

Would you have been approving of that action in order to not leave an American behind? Or would you have had complaints over the method?
Click to expand...

Only if it was part of a strategy to declare war and go in, no holds barred, to completely subdue Afganistan and its people and set up a new society based on religious freedom and free enterprise and with all of the guarantees of liberty in our own Constitution. Such a strategy would destroy utterly the Taliban and its sympathizers, would no doubt kill off millions of people, but would have as an end result the defeat of totalitarianism in that nation and the end of radical Islam there.

Or, if we're not willing to go all the way, let's just get the hell out and let them set up whatever sort of religious dictatorship they want.
 
Zyphlin said:
Let's take a hypothetical here.

The Administration has established that it's wrong and offensive to leave any American behind. Prior to this whole prisoner swap people both on the left and right seemed to think it would be a good thing to get Bowe Bergdahl back. So, here's my question.

What if instead of a prisoner swap, we had a surge. Troop levels in Afghanistan were ramped up back into peak numbers, with an aggressive and forceful ground and air effort against the taliban in an effort to locate and fight our way to Bergdahl and free him.

Would you have been approving of that action in order to not leave an American behind? Or would you have had complaints over the method?
Click to expand...

We'd certainly be sacrificing many more soldiers who would die in the surge to look for Bergdahl. This is also assuming we know where he is and can get to him, which is a pretty dramatic and unfounded assumption.

So no, I don't approve. Wasting many American lives to keep 5 **** heads in prison isn't really preserving American freedom.
 
I dont believe the OP's suggested method would be the best method for rescue.

Of course I'm not a military tactician but I'd recommend a small covert group going in and it would be all volunteer. And there would be volunteers because the men and women of our military for the most part really do believe in 'no man left behind.' Even with the accusations against him, I believe there would be volunteers.

So I voted "I would not approve of that method."
 
*hiccup*

dupe post
 
Thanks everyone for your responses so far. I also figured I should explain my thought process with this thread.

Over the past week or so I've seen the accusation levied repeatedly that those on "the right" are being hypocritical in criticising the Obama Administration after some on "the right" were calling for us to rescue Bowe Bergdahl.

I wanted to highlight exactly how it's possible to agree with the general notion that we don't leave soldiers behind and that we should try to rescue hime while while also voicing legitimace concerns and issues with the METHOD that it's being done.
 
TheNextEra said:
I wouldn't approve of that method, mainly because it would have put troops back into harms way. I have no problem with the President's decision to get Bergdahl back. That is something we should do because until he has a chance to comment on his behalf and a trial or investigation, he is innocent until proven guilty and is an American Soldier.

What I have a problem with is he went thoguh all this for one soldier in Afghanistan,
yet hasn't tried the same way for the military member sitting in a Mexican jail
Click to expand...
whom doesn't have nearly the contraversary as this Bergdahl. That is my issue with all of this.
Click to expand...




The USA hasn't been fighting a war in Mexico for 12 years.
 
Dittohead not! said:
This despite the on going invasion
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...




Maybe Bush should have attacked Mexico instead of Iraq.

We wouldn't of had to move our troops quite as far.

And he could have said that they were already invading the USA, so we were just returning the favor.
 
shrubnose said:
Maybe Bush should have attacked Mexico instead of Iraq.

We wouldn't of had to move our troops quite as far.

And he could have said that they were already invading the USA, so we were just returning the favor.
Click to expand...

but Mexico didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
 
Zyphlin said:
Let's take a hypothetical here.

The Administration has established that it's wrong and offensive to leave any American behind. Prior to this whole prisoner swap people both on the left and right seemed to think it would be a good thing to get Bowe Bergdahl back. So, here's my question.

What if instead of a prisoner swap, we had a surge. Troop levels in Afghanistan were ramped up back into peak numbers, with an aggressive and forceful ground and air effort against the taliban in an effort to locate and fight our way to Bergdahl and free him.

Would you have been approving of that action in order to not leave an American behind? Or would you have had complaints over the method?
Click to expand...

There is always the devil in the details that makes application of a single clear principle impossible in these things and that makes it difficult to give a yes or no answer.

If our role in Afghanistan in the first place was to so severely punish the Taliban so that they, or others, would be less able to commit a 9/11 kind of mayhem, then our initial strikes in Afghanistan are supportable. But if nation building and achieving a democratic government friendly to the free world is the goal, then we should jolly well have been prepared to go in with overwhelming force, regardless of whatever collateral damage occurred, and bring the existing government to its knees and unconditional surrender. And then we would dictate--not negotiate--dictate what was expected of the people in order to get their country back. That is what we did in Germany and Japan--we didn't concern ourselves or didn't care about winning the hearts and minds of the people. We bludgeoned two totalitarian empires into total submission, rebuilt them, and they have been peaceful citizens and allies of the free world ever since.

Negotiations to retrieve one of our own are okay if they do not put other Americans at higher risk. The way Bergdahl's release was done, I believe did put Americans at higher risk. The Taliban won in every single aspect of that trade and don't think they aren't celebrating that and will draw from that experience for the next successful kidnap they are able to accomplish. And I'm sure they are scheming to accomplish it as we speak.

Unless we are going to bring all our guys and gals home now and forget the whole thing there, the only surge I would approve would be overwhelming force and taking total control of the situation and to hell with what anybody else thinks about that. As we seem to have no political will to do that, I say bring everybody home and chalk it up to a huge mistake. Let's don't continue to throw precious blood and treasure into a lost cause.
 
Zyphlin said:
Let's take a hypothetical here.

The Administration has established that it's wrong and offensive to leave any American behind. Prior to this whole prisoner swap people both on the left and right seemed to think it would be a good thing to get Bowe Bergdahl back. So, here's my question.

What if instead of a prisoner swap, we had a surge. Troop levels in Afghanistan were ramped up back into peak numbers, with an aggressive and forceful ground and air effort against the taliban in an effort to locate and fight our way to Bergdahl and free him.

Would you have been approving of that action in order to not leave an American behind? Or would you have had complaints over the method?
Click to expand...

Would not approve.
We accomplished our mission and Al Qaeda is scattered and decimated in Afghanistan. It is time to bring our people home.

It is also extremely important to remember that Al Qaeda was our enemy, not the Taliban. Al Qaeda were the terrorists, not the Taliban.
We toppled the Taliban and continue to fight them because they harbored Al Qaeda and essentially "spit in our faces" when we asked that they be handed over.
The Taliban never attacked the United States, we attacked them.
Now I agree that they deserved it. I supported the war in Afghanistan. But it is critical, very very critical that we remember who attacked who when tossing around terms such as "terrorist". The Taliban fight our troops in whatever way they are able to. Sometimes using similar tactics as those that we ourselves taught them to use against the Soviet Union.

Now any remaining Afghan Al Qaeda are most likely living in Pakistan. Pakistan fails to hand them over just like the Taliban did. Does this make the government of Pakistan terrorists by the same definition?
Or do we call Taliban terrorists because they fight us in their own land in whatever way they can? Either way, the logic of referring to them as terrorists is extremely flawed.

It is time we move beyond the Bush doctrine of "they are either with us or against us" and stop referring to anyone that fights back as a terrorist.
The Taliban are our enemy. We made a legit prisoner exchange at the end of a war with the remnants of their previous Government.
If those individuals that we released had been Al Qaeda, I would be outraged at our Government for releasing them. But as far as I know, they were not.
We do not negotiate with terrorists.
 
Zyphlin said:
Let's take a hypothetical here.

The Administration has established that it's wrong and offensive to leave any American behind. Prior to this whole prisoner swap people both on the left and right seemed to think it would be a good thing to get Bowe Bergdahl back. So, here's my question.

What if instead of a prisoner swap, we had a surge. Troop levels in Afghanistan were ramped up back into peak numbers, with an aggressive and forceful ground and air effort against the taliban in an effort to locate and fight our way to Bergdahl and free him.

Would you have been approving of that action in order to not leave an American behind? Or would you have had complaints over the method?
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but hasn't it been reported that as many as six soldiers were killed in attempts to locate and rescue Bergdahl over the time he was missing. Unless you have specific intelligence about where a single person may be located, it is virtually impossible to be successful in a brute force rescue - even then, brute force often leaves the victim dead and others too. For all we know at this point, Bergdahl may not have even been in Afghanistan prior to this deal being brokered.

Even police and firefighters, people who spend their lives rescuing people in trouble, do not sacrifice their own lives unless they are pretty sure their rescue mission can be successful. Even when a firefighter is in trouble, in a building, other firefighters don't blindly go in to get him/her unless success is possible.
 
Zyphlin said:
Thanks everyone for your responses so far. I also figured I should explain my thought process with this thread.

Over the past week or so I've seen the accusation levied repeatedly that those on "the right" are being hypocritical in criticising the Obama Administration after some on "the right" were calling for us to rescue Bowe Bergdahl.

I wanted to highlight exactly how it's possible to agree with the general notion that we don't leave soldiers behind and that we should try to rescue hime while while also voicing legitimace concerns and issues with the METHOD that it's being done.
Click to expand...

I think you are absolutely correct in pointing out that disagreement with the method is legitimate, and that some on the right are genuinely disagreeing with the method.

However, I seriously doubt the majority of right-wingers are genuinely disagreeing with the method. So the left is returning the favor and inauthentically blasting the right as hypocritical.

It is absolutely ridiculous that people are acting like they actually have some kind of righteous indignation in this situation. The decision was difficult. I happen to disagree with the one that was made, but I can see it would be difficult, and I can see how I might easily feel differently. It is pathetic what the right is willing to do to ruthlessly win the partisan battle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom