Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

Deserter or not. The man is an American. We bring him home. Regardless what we do with him when he gets here, we bring him home.

ChezC3 said:

Deserter or not. The man is an American. We bring him home. Regardless what we do with him when he gets here, we bring him home.

Click to expand...

I think most people would agree with that sentiment if not with the particulars of the trade that brought him home. Now that he is here, it looks as if he will face the music for his actions. As well he should and it looks like his own farewell letter will be quite material in the matter.

Bowe Bergdahl left letter at Afghan base saying he'd left 'to start new life' | Mail Online

Glen Contrarian said:

Did I say we should never have invaded? Did I say that? No, I did not. What I am TELLING you is that what YOU and the rest of the Right is doing is you aren't even attempting to understand your enemy...

...and Sun Tzu said it best:

If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

You must know your enemy. Y'all not only don't know your enemy, you apparently don't even see the need to know your enemy. It's just like when the Muslim scholars tried to explain to Dubya about the Sunni and Shi'a schism (which is like the old Catholic/protestant schism but on steroids), he said something to the effect of "What's the difference - they're all Muslim."

And that, sir, is why we've been in such a mess in the Middle East - y'all haven't even tried to understand your enemy.

Click to expand...

No, what you are doing is attempting to characterize ME as a part of a group which you define as "the right" and then attack the group. It's a farce and you know it.

Never once did I make this ideological. You did. You did so because you know that this was a boneheaded deal and the only way you can defend Obama for making it is to attempt to turn it into an ideological pissing match.

I'm not having any of it.

Jack Fabulous said:

No, what you are doing is attempting to characterize ME as a part of a group which you define as "the right" and then attack the group. It's a farce and you know it.

Never once did I make this ideological. You did. You did so because you know that this was a boneheaded deal and the only way you can defend Obama for making it is to attempt to turn it into an ideological pissing match.

I'm not having any of it.

Click to expand...

Hm? Really? You post this: "Got any more far left partisan drivel you'd like to deposit? I hope not because any more and normal people are going to start to puke all over the place."

...and you get ticked off because I accuse you of being part of the Right?

Guy, maybe you disagree with the Right on certain things - but are you assuming that I never disagree with the Left? Look at my chosen name: "Glen Contrarian". Do you think that 'Contrarian' is there just for the hell of it? Yeah, I call myself 'progressive'...but you would be better advised not to assume that I'm some kind of talking-points-repeat-bot.

I am retired Navy - I give a damn about my fellow military, even the ones who did really stupid things like Bergdahl did. In this case I am defending Obama's actions because his actions were the right thing to do. We followed our national TRADITION. Maybe the tradition of "leave no one behind no matter what" doesn't mean that much to you, but it sure as hell does to me.

Here's something that a retired Navy warrant officer wrote - it's a truly epic ass-chewing for all those who wanted to just leave Bergdahl there. Maybe you've spent a couple decades or more in the military. If you did, even if you disagree with him, you'll enjoy it as only career military can.

ChezC3 said:

Deserter or not. The man is an American. We bring him home. Regardless what we do with him when he gets here, we bring him home.

Click to expand...

The question isn't do we bring him home or not (even if it may be to stuff him in jail for the rest of his life) the question is how it was done and at what price.

Filthy McNasty said:

I think most people would agree with that sentiment if not with the particulars of the trade that brought him home. Now that he is here, it looks as if he will face the music for his actions. As well he should and it looks like his own farewell letter will be quite material in the matter.

Bowe Bergdahl left letter at Afghan base saying he'd left 'to start new life' | Mail Online

Click to expand...

Yeah, he needs to face the music if what is said was done, even if we get'em so that he gets thrown to the gallows, we bring him home. I hear allot of words to the contrary. So far as the prison swap, I've got to believe while symbolically it definitely is a catastrophe, practically steps were put in place which would allow a drone strike on their sorry asses to be eminent.

Glen Contrarian said:

Before we invaded, who were we talking to, to get Afghanistan to turn over bin Laden? The Taliban. Apparently at the time, we thought they were the government for all practical intents and purposes...and so did they.



I'm sure a lot of Iranians did like us...but we'd be fools to assume that most do, especially after what we did in the Iran/Iraq war.

And I really am not concerned about those five Taliban - if there's 14 tribes that really are against them (and are you really sure that's the case, or is that simply what we're told?), then those five shouldn't make much of a difference. What concerns me much more is that we brought our soldier home (even if he's going to be court-martialed). What we did is very much in line with what we've done before, going back all the way to the Revolutionary War.

That, and the fact that the Taliban isn't firmly in charge of an organized nation, complete with uniforms for their soldiers and an official flag and Olympic team and whatnot, does NOT mean we can't swap prisoners with them...especially considering the increasingly decentralized nature of organizations in the modern world. That last phrase is important - these days, it's becoming much easier to have a tightly-run intercontinental organization. Refusing to deal with such on grounds that they don't possess the classical paradigm of a nation is naive.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]


Not really, The Taliban and their other 3 allied troops just controlled the area where AQ was training and given safe sancturary.

As for Iran you were talking 1950’s. Up and until the time Jimmy Carter let the Shah be over thrown we got along just fine with most of the Iranian people.

I'm sure a lot of Iranians did like us...but we'd be fools to assume that most do, especially after what we did in the Iran/Iraq war.

I suppose there was a valid reason the present Afghan government wasn’t told we were releasing these 5 hard core leaders. I can’t say for sure, but I suppose they would have been adamantly against it and shed some rain on the parade.

Interesting that you are not concerned at all what these 5 hard core leaders will do. I am not that concerned either, I suppose we will take care of them in due time if the need arises. Just like we took care of 30% of other releases from Gitmo that returned to the battlefield. But with these 5 back with the Taliban it probably does make it easier for them to dispose of the current government of Afghanistan. But none of know what will happen in the future. This trade may be just the tip of the Iceberg in peace negotiation with the Taliban, who knows. There are so many things done behind the people’s back, most with good reason. I know.

As for failing to deal with them as a nation, you brought that up stating we made swaps with other nations, I just tried to let you know why most people consider the Taliban a terrorist organization and not a nation. I do know that 14 tribes which now consist of the present government do consider them a terrorist organization.

I one is aware of all or most possible repercussions and weighed them against the short term gain, then I have no problem with it personally. If you think there is an uproar now, wait and see what happens if the Taliban kidnaps another American and tries to exchange him/her for more prisoners at Gitmo. This may or may not happen and I hope part of the deal for the release of the five was the Taliban’s word they would not kidnap or capture any more Americans.

As for Bergdahl, we knew he walked off his post. He made a decision to leave, it was his decision. I also heard today on the news according to a high ranking defense official this was the second time he walked off. I suppose we should wait until it is verified. But most military types have very little sympathy for Bergdahl. It does seem most of the sympathy and desire to get him in a swap comes from the civilian sector. We shall see.

This is just another big "Screw you, America" by the Obama administration. You can't reasonably argue that they didn't know that they were trading 5 top level terrorists for a deserter. Why this guy? Why did this have to be done? There have been so many other prisoners much more worthy of a trade than this guy. Seems to me they had another agenda.

Ockham said:

The question isn't do we bring him home or not (even if it may be to stuff him in jail for the rest of his life) the question is how it was done and at what price.

Click to expand...

I've heard pissing and moaning about bringing him home, a lot of it coming from the Right side of the isle. Post #231, I elaborated on my position.

The thing we have to recognize is that Obama has always been one to forgo custom and etiquette. It shouldn't surprise anyone that he paid little heed to the symbolic nature of the swap. What concerns me more so is if he actually had the presence of mind to make these criminals easily removable. His incompetence on any number of given issues tells me no.

ChezC3 said:

I've heard pissing and moaning about bringing him home, a lot of it coming from the Right side of the isle. Post #231, I elaborated on my position.

The thing we have to recognize is that Obama has always been one to forgo custom and etiquette.

Click to expand...

Etiquette? In case it's not etiquette but the law he signed.

ChezC3 said:

It shouldn't surprise anyone that he paid little heed to the symbolic nature of the swap. What concerns me more so is if he actually had the presence of mind to make these criminals easily removable. His incompetence on any number of given issues tells me no.

Click to expand...

The problem with Obama is he pays little heed to anything he doesn't agree with. The nature of the swap I don't disagree with. However, that doesn't excuse Obama from having to follow the law like everyone else, and I tend to disagree with these 5 Taliban leaders who were let go, as the decision was in my view incompetent and reckless.

Amadeus said:

I did my research. His soldier critics claim that he was suspected of desertion and TREASON shortly after he disappeared. How does that translate into two promotions?

Click to expand...

He wasn't listed as desertion, rather as M.I.A ... doesn't change what he did. Remember, what uncle Sam giveth, uncle Sam can taketh.

I would never address that P.O.S as sergeant. He's a disgrace.

Chocolate said:

I have a feeling this was more of a political "know soldier left behind" kind of thing rather then a balanced trade but I don't know

Click to expand...

I think that's "No soldier left behind"...

Ockham said:

Etiquette? In case it's not etiquette but the law he signed.



The problem with Obama is he pays little heed to anything he doesn't agree with. The nature of the swap I don't disagree with. However, that doesn't excuse Obama from having to follow the law like everyone else, and I tend to disagree with these 5 Taliban leaders who were let go, as the decision was in my view incompetent and reckless.

Click to expand...

I was speaking to his pattern of behavior...

I agree with all you're saying but being responsible for enforcing the law means you get to break it, especially when you're protected by the Senate.

(don't confuse this with agreement of action.)

What I don't think your getting is that what I'm saying is did he just let those 5 go free and clear with a pat on the bum and a "No hard feeling, eh?"

Or

Did he at some point stick a RFID chip up their asses so that once free -- unbeknownst to them -- they would lead our Intelligence community to other conspirators and if the need arises, like when they get all the intel possible, they send in a drone strike zeroed in on the RFID signal and BOOM! No more bad guys?

One is irresponsible the other not so much.

(and yes we do have the technology to do that)

Glen Contrarian said:

Doesn't matter. We swapped North Koreans and Vietnamese for our POW's in the past, and their nations had killed a heck of a lot more of our troops than the Taliban had. We swapped POW's with Germany at the end of WWI. The Union and the South swapped POW's many times. We swapped POW's with England in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. And in ALL these cases, the enemy had killed FAR more of our troops than the Taliban had...and in the cases of the Civil War, the War of 1812, and the Revolutionary War, these presented an existential danger to America itself. And then there's the small matter of Reagan trading 1500 missiles to Iran for American hostages.

So...NO, I can't think of a single other president who would not have authorized the same thing.

On top of all that, we had real concern about his physical health, which seemed to be deteriorating. Again, whatever he did or did not do, it is American tradition that we bring him home - and if we had allowed him to die, then we would have broken that tradition...and of course the Right would have had a field day with that one, too.

Click to expand...

We bring home Americans. Bergdahl renounced his citizenship.

Not really, The Taliban and their other 3 allied troops just controlled the area where AQ was training and given safe sancturary.[/QUOTE]

Then why was the Bush administration talking with them at all?

As for Iran you were talking 1950’s. Up and until the time Jimmy Carter let the Shah be over thrown we got along just fine with most of the Iranian people.

Click to expand...

It's been sixty years since then, and thirty years since the Iran/Iraq war that was worse than any war America's ever fought in terms of deaths.

If such had been done to America by a foreign power, do you really think we would have forgiven - much less forgotten - by then? Remember, there are many alive in Iran today whose parents, siblings, or children died in that war where we gave so much more assistance to the other side.

I suppose there was a valid reason the present Afghan government wasn’t told we were releasing these 5 hard core leaders. I can’t say for sure, but I suppose they would have been adamantly against it and shed some rain on the parade.

Click to expand...

And I really couldn't care less. What I care about is getting our soldiers home.

Interesting that you are not concerned at all what these 5 hard core leaders will do. I am not that concerned either, I suppose we will take care of them in due time if the need arises. Just like we took care of 30% of other releases from Gitmo that returned to the battlefield. But with these 5 back with the Taliban it probably does make it easier for them to dispose of the current government of Afghanistan. But none of know what will happen in the future. This trade may be just the tip of the Iceberg in peace negotiation with the Taliban, who knows. There are so many things done behind the people’s back, most with good reason. I know.

As for failing to deal with them as a nation, you brought that up stating we made swaps with other nations, I just tried to let you know why most people consider the Taliban a terrorist organization and not a nation. I do know that 14 tribes which now consist of the present government do consider them a terrorist organization.

I one is aware of all or most possible repercussions and weighed them against the short term gain, then I have no problem with it personally. If you think there is an uproar now, wait and see what happens if the Taliban kidnaps another American and tries to exchange him/her for more prisoners at Gitmo. This may or may not happen and I hope part of the deal for the release of the five was the Taliban’s word they would not kidnap or capture any more Americans.

As for Bergdahl, we knew he walked off his post. He made a decision to leave, it was his decision. I also heard today on the news according to a high ranking defense official this was the second time he walked off. I suppose we should wait until it is verified. But most military types have very little sympathy for Bergdahl. It does seem most of the sympathy and desire to get him in a swap comes from the civilian sector. We shall see.

Click to expand...

Why do you think I feel the least sympathy for a deserter? This is NOT about Bergdahl! And it's not about letting those five Taliban free. This is about upholding the tradition we've held for 238 years that no one gets left behind.

Why is it a big freaking deal? Because the tradition that we leave no one behind is a not-much-short-of-sacred promise we give to our men and women in uniform. NO ONE GETS LEFT BEHIND. If they start thinking that yeah, we might leave them behind, and if that's backed up with our actions like the Right apparently wanted us to do with Bergdahl, that directly affects morale - they're not so willing to stand their ground, and might be more willing to rout. On the other hand, if they KNOW that we've got their backs, if they KNOW that no matter what, we're coming for them, if they KNOW that they won't be left behind until they die, and if that's backed up with our actions like we just did with Bergdahl...that's a heck of a benefit for morale. It means the troops know that they can trust America to come get them.

Like I said, it's NOT about Bergdahl - it's about TRADITION, and how that tradition directly benefits our troops in the field. Is this really so difficult to grasp?

Glen Contrarian said:

Hm? Really? You post this: "Got any more far left partisan drivel you'd like to deposit? I hope not because any more and normal people are going to start to puke all over the place."

...and you get ticked off because I accuse you of being part of the Right?

Guy, maybe you disagree with the Right on certain things - but are you assuming that I never disagree with the Left? Look at my chosen name: "Glen Contrarian". Do you think that 'Contrarian' is there just for the hell of it? Yeah, I call myself 'progressive'...but you would be better advised not to assume that I'm some kind of talking-points-repeat-bot.

I am retired Navy - I give a damn about my fellow military, even the ones who did really stupid things like Bergdahl did. In this case I am defending Obama's actions because his actions were the right thing to do. We followed our national TRADITION. Maybe the tradition of "leave no one behind no matter what" doesn't mean that much to you, but it sure as hell does to me.

Here's something that a retired Navy warrant officer wrote - it's a truly epic ass-chewing for all those who wanted to just leave Bergdahl there. Maybe you've spent a couple decades or more in the military. If you did, even if you disagree with him, you'll enjoy it as only career military can.

Click to expand...

He did not do the right thing. First of all, the war is not over. Second, Berghdal renounced his citizenship and deserted, third, Obama broke the law in doing it.

There is no "right thing" in any of it.

ChezC3 said:

I was speaking to his pattern of behavior...

I agree with all you're saying but being responsible for enforcing the law means you get to break it, especially when you're protected by the Senate.

Click to expand...

What? No it doesn't mean you get to break the law because he's protected by the Senate. Just because I know a cop who has my back doesn't mean I should be allowed to commit a crime and get away with it. Either the law applies to everyone or it does not and if it does not, this government will soon fold under its own corruption. Now that doesn't sound half bad to me personally, but I still believe in accountability even though it's now considered a quaint point of view.

ChezC3 said:

What I don't think your getting is that what I'm saying is did he just let those 5 go free and clear with a pat on the bum and a "No hard feeling, eh?"

Or

Did he at some point stick a RFID chip up their asses so that once free -- unbeknownst to them -- they would lead our Intelligence community to other conspirators and if the need arises, like when they get all the intel possible, they send in a drone strike zeroed in on the RFID signal and BOOM! No more bad guys?

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt anything like that occurred. The AP actually contradicted Obama's own statement on the release - Obama stated the US will keep tabs on these guys when the AP reported there is no such thing planned nor logistically a way to do such a thing.

What I don't get is the benefit of the doubt this President gets - when has his administration shown foresight and planning? In fact it seems to be the direct opposite; they make things up as they go along. So an RFID chip seems silly. It might be a nice thing to think about to sleep at night but that's about it.

Glen Contrarian said:

Not really, The Taliban and their other 3 allied troops just controlled the area where AQ was training and given safe sancturary.

Click to expand...

Then why was the Bush administration talking with them at all?



It's been sixty years since then, and thirty years since the Iran/Iraq war that was worse than any war America's ever fought in terms of deaths.

If such had been done to America by a foreign power, do you really think we would have forgiven - much less forgotten - by then? Remember, there are many alive in Iran today whose parents, siblings, or children died in that war where we gave so much more assistance to the other side.



And I really couldn't care less. What I care about is getting our soldiers home.



Why do you think I feel the least sympathy for a deserter? This is NOT about Bergdahl! And it's not about letting those five Taliban free. This is about upholding the tradition we've held for 238 years that no one gets left behind.

Why is it a big freaking deal? Because the tradition that we leave no one behind is a not-much-short-of-sacred promise we give to our men and women in uniform. NO ONE GETS LEFT BEHIND. If they start thinking that yeah, we might leave them behind, and if that's backed up with our actions like the Right apparently wanted us to do with Bergdahl, that directly affects morale - they're not so willing to stand their ground, and might be more willing to rout. On the other hand, if they KNOW that we've got their backs, if they KNOW that no matter what, we're coming for them, if they KNOW that they won't be left behind until they die, and if that's backed up with our actions like we just did with Bergdahl...that's a heck of a benefit for morale. It means the troops know that they can trust America to come get them.

Like I said, it's NOT about Bergdahl - it's about TRADITION, and how that tradition directly benefits our troops in the field. Is this really so difficult to grasp?[/QUOTE]


As to why Bush negotiated with them, I suppose it was because the Taliban were the ones providing sanctuary to AQ, I don’t know you would have to ask him.

We left 80-100 deserters in Vietnam after the fall of Saigon and no one every question it. I suppose it was because this nation just wanted to wash its hands of Vietnam.

Well, I tried to explain why some people here think we gave up way to much, I suppose I have failed. I remember a John McCain sitting in Hanoi Hilton, his father was CINCPAC at the time. The North Vietnamese offered to release him, but John and his father refused, stating those captured before him need to be released first.

Anyway, take care, I will not try to explain things again.

Ockham said:

What? No it doesn't mean you get to break the law because he's protected by the Senate. Just because I know a cop who has my back doesn't mean I should be allowed to commit a crime and get away with it. Either the law applies to everyone or it does not and if it does not, this government will soon fold under its own corruption. Now that doesn't sound half bad to me personally, but I still believe in accountability even though it's now considered a quaint point of view.

I seriously doubt anything like that occurred. The AP actually contradicted Obama's own statement on the release - Obama stated the US will keep tabs on these guys when the AP reported there is no such thing planned nor logistically a way to do such a thing.

What I don't get is the benefit of the doubt this President gets - when has his administration shown foresight and planning? In fact it seems to be the direct opposite; they make things up as they go along. So an RFID chip seems silly. It might be a nice thing to think about to sleep at night but that's about it.

Click to expand...

Actually, as has been shown, it does...:shrug:

Honey? How did you get into Ockham's account? :shock:

What are ya man, my wife? Did you not listen to me sayin I don't agree but the facts on the ground are as they are -- I've shown it as it is...

Now, why would an RFID chip sound silly, outside of you just seemingly trying to talk past me and create an argument where there is none to be had?

We have the logistics to stick a RFID in our dogs but not people? Are you serious? Are you unaware of the technology that's out there? Of DARPA? Of Regina Dugan? This isn't conspiracy theory BS man, these people/things are real, and they are really promoting it...If they already are in the initial phases of marketing it for civilian use you can bet your Aunt Sally that it's been in use militarily.

Youtube any interview with her and you'll see it is more than "logistically possible".

Now, AS I SAID, did he or anyone of the dimwits have presence of mind or no?

You say no, and I AM LIKELY TO AGREE.

Arbo said:

Let's not… just answer the question rather than avoiding it.

The only 'politics' in this situation is being played by the politicians. There are valid concerns about this whole situation and those involved, and those questions don't care who was president when such a thing happens, so continuing on with 'this is just politics' is beyond moronic.



These are the people released:



Who is naive?????

Click to expand...

your question a red herring and you know it.

apdst said:

These 5 guys are the Jodl, Himmler, Keitel, Geobbels and Hess of the Taliban, so yes, these 5 guys could very well make a difference.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

If Bergdahl hadn't deserted his unit, he wouldn't have been captured. That one decision cost several American lives and placed no telling how many more in danger.

Click to expand...

Capster78 said:

This sounds very nice, but very little truth lies in the history of this thinking. It only takes one Hitler, one Mao, one Stalin to shape a movement that tricks people into thinking killing mass amounts of people is ok. So to say 5 high ranking terrorists will have no effect because there are thousands out there is just ignorant.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

how can you elevate these 5 individuals to the status of those who didn't just kill 100's or even 1000's to those who killed millions. ridiculous.

Beaudreaux said:

I stated that I am glad the guy is coming home. Maybe you missed that. That doesn't mean that I have to shut up about how it was done. Or, ask questions.

I would think that the people that these 5 kill, would think that it should have mattered and that it does make a difference. What difference does it make? Are you the speech writer for Hillary Clinton also?

Click to expand...

questions are good and no one is asking you to shut up.

Travis007 said:

Thsi deal puts every American at risk to be taken hostage..

Click to expand...

sorry but that's simply isn't true.

MrVicchio said:

He deserted his post. 6 men directly died in operations to find him.

What do you tell those families?

Click to expand...

mac said:

Bergdahl was a deserter that renounced his American citizenship. As far as I'm concerned, we gave the enemy 5 proven murderers for one stateless criminal.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

100's and 100's of soldiers died doing what they were asked to do in this war.

He is a soldier, an American soldier. It doesn't matter if he made a mistake. We should not leave his punishment or capture up to the Taliban. Get him back. Deal with everything else after he is back in us control.

Blue_State said:

He is a soldier, an American soldier. It doesn't matter if he made a mistake. We should not leave his punishment or capture up to the Taliban. Get him back. Deal with everything else after he is back in us control.

Click to expand...

And that has been the case. Now, with this president, the question is will they?

tacomancer said:

Click to expand...

Cute, this is what I love about DP, the same people will jump on and condemn the president saying he can do nothing wrong no matter what he does and it is the same people what will be defending him to the hilt saying he can do no wrong no matter what he does.

j-mac said:

And that has been the case. Now, with this president, the question is will they?

Click to expand...

No idea. I would love to hear from the SGT's platoon leader and platoon SGT. I think they knew (I have nothing to back this, pure speculation and opinion). The reason I think that was he was in missions outside the wire, and few days later on base guard duty. That was suppose to be a low stress duty. I could be way off.

The doctors will help him now. Hopefully, he can has some semblance of a normal life. The military will do its thing, but I don't forsee them punishing him after being captive for 5 years. Maybe just ETS.