Bowe Bergdahl pleads guilty to desertion

[shrubnose]

Why did the U. S. Army enlist Bergdahl after he was discharged from the Coast Guard for psychological reasons?t

I predict that will have an effect on the long-term outcome of this case.

Wait and see.

 

[jmotivator]

If that's your characterization of the situation then we're done here. I have to go to work tomorrow and am not going to bother with any more dishonesty tonight. :2wave:

LOL. What would your characterization be then, Deuce? We traded 5 high ranking Taliban commanders for Bergdahl. People died taking those monsters in to custody. Do you have evidence that they asked for more than that? Because that alone is far more than we ever should have agreed to, especially given the questionable circumstances for his disappearance, and the mountain of evidence that he was not supporting the war efforts to begin with.

 

[American]

I hope the judge takes into account THIS lame answer to his question:

A confession with a supporting statement.

 

[American]

Has it not dawned upon you that Obama is no longer in office?

It happened on his watch.

 

[jmotivator]

You're advocating leaving an American soldier as a POW in enemy hands with ZERO evidence of any wrong-doing. In 11 pages you haven't been able to produce one shred of information that anybody on the planet knew with any certainty that he deserted. You're an arm chair commander making extrajudicial ****-sure decisions after the fact. Thank god our leaders had a shred of honor and didn't have your immense cowardice and disrespect for our judicial system and military.

If you ever did deploy during those 21 years, someone should've left your ass for dead because they subjectively detected you are a coward who might desert his country. I get those vibes from you and apparently vibes are all that is needed to sentence a POW to death.

There was ample evidence of his voluntary desertion. the Taliban is incapable of night raids, and when they breech a fort defenses like would be necessary they choose to cause mass casualties rather than take a single soldier. Likewise, the would have taken the soldier's weapons, but Berdahl's weapons were left at his post. Also Bergdahl was known to his squad mates to be against the war and resented his deployment.

You want us to believe that the Taliban mounted a Seal Team 6 style raid on the compound with the goal of taking a single prisoner and leaving the fort unguarded at that post... and then not exploit it with an attack AND leave the prisoner's extremely valuable weapons gear at the post. Sorry, his disappearance was extremely fishy from the start because of all the evidence.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

There was ample evidence of his voluntary desertion. the Taliban is incapable of night raids, and when they breech a fort defenses like would be necessary they choose to cause mass casualties rather than take a single soldier. Likewise, the would have taken the soldier's weapons, but Berdahl's weapons were left at his post. Also Bergdahl was known to his squad mates to be against the war and resented his deployment.

You want us to believe that the Taliban mounted a Seal Team 6 style raid on the compound with the goal of taking a single prisoner and leaving the fort unguarded at that post... and then not exploit it with an attack AND leave the prisoner's extremely valuable weapons gear at the post. Sorry, his disappearance was extremely fishy from the start because of all the evidence.

I'm not saying the Taliban did a Seal Team 6 raid on the outpost. His disappearance being "fishy" is not enough reason to just write off an American POW in enemy hands and sentence him to death. I was on a small COP in Afghanistan with about 50 guys. There were LOTS of exploitable holes in our security, Afghan workers worked on the COP along with about 50 Afghan national army who were corrupt as ****. Kidnapping someone would not be very hard. His disappearance alone is not enough evidence to sentence him to death.

Once we got him back we were able to get the full story and he is being prosecuted to the full extent of UCMJ. That is how the system works. We do not leave our soldiers in enemy hands because the circumstances of their disappearance was suspicious.

 

[MSgt]

But I'm no military lawyer so I have no idea what rises to the level of desertion vs whatever he's saying he was trying to do (AWOL for a cause or...?)

You do not have to be a lawyer. It is quite simple.

- Absent Without Leave (AWOL) means he was absent from his appointed place of duty without permission (Leave). The fact that he voluntarily decided to abandon his unit and leave equates to desertion. It doesn't matter what his after-the-fact developed reason was that his lawyer tried to pull.

- The Marine Corps doesn't do "AWOL" because it allows people to dance around with the term. We use "Unauthorized Absence" (UA). Just one second late for formation makes you subject for UA. This is why Marines show up fifteen minutes prior to the fifteen minute prior formation.


The circumstances around Bergdahl are highly pathetic for two reasons; personal and institutional.

1) After telling his father that he is in moral crisis, he goes on to tell people that he was captured after he couldn't keep up in a patrol. This makes him weak and unprofessional and certainly beneath the simple standards of a soldier in any country's army. After the investigation found his belongings neatly stacked and his compass missing, as well as character witness reports, it was concluded that he walked off the base on his own. Of course, years later, through his lawyer, Bergdahl admits this, which makes him a liar. It also displays his complete lack of integrity since he earlier refused to stand by his moral crisis and pretended to be captured instead. Oh...and now he is supposed to be crazy. Let's toss in some good 'ole PTSD to feel sorry for him while we are at it.

2) Bergdahl is yet another example of the many Army soldiers who have Wikipedia pages to lay out their bad behavior and lack of discipline. Lowering standards during war in order to introduce numbers is historical in all nations. But the Bowe Bergdahls, the Jessica Lynchs, the Bradley Mannings, the Nidal Malik Hasans, the Ivan Lopez', the Robert Bales', and the Lynndie Englands do not come from the Navy, Air Force, or Marines. Such a wave of insubordination and bad behavior doesn't even come out of foreign militaries like this. And didn't the Marines lower its standards too? Perhaps the Marines lowered its standards from a normally higher standard than the Army, which accounts for the higher number of morally corrupt and crazies in the Army who make headline news. Even General David Howell Petraeus proved to be less than disciplined. And when even the Generals betray their integrity and institution, what does this leave open for the young soldiers? The fact that so many soldier's feel free to simply choose to betray their uniforms and their training is a sign of a wider cultural and discipline issue all up and down the chain.

Of course, the first thing soldiers will state is that the Army has more people. Yet, the Marine Corps had to lower standards to get above 200,000 during the last decade. Did it need to get to 250,000 or 300,000 before it produced a Jessica Lynch story of incompetence or a Bradley manning? The Air Force has over 300,000 active duty members. Where is their wealth of bad behavior? More numbers is an excuse that doesn't work. All soldiers have drill instructors, NCOs, SNCOs, and Officers to guide, mold, train, and hold accountable. It's not like a whole lot of new soldiers get introduced but weren't given any leaders. A lot of somebodies aren't doing their job.

The Army also has a very high desertion rate since the Iraq war began. Army officials tried to explain this by declaring that the deploy rate is getting to them. There are two problems with this excuse. Marines have also experienced a high deploy rate and even without the wars go through greater deploy rotation than the Army. One may consider that people join the Marines to "get some," therefore there lies a different cultural breed when it comes to deployment. Joining the Army during war time only to complain about having to deploy is absolutely stupid. The second problem is that "more than 75 percent of the deserters are soldiers in their first term of enlistment." In other words, the lower standards introduced individuals who should have never even been in an Army uniform in the first place.

And the notion that such talk merely promotes some sad little competition between branches only serves to help avoid the very real issue. Each has their issues. The Navy has had their Tailhooks and the Marines have pissed on corpses. But dismissing an alarmingly high degree of high-profile issues out of one Branch means nothing when the Navy, Air Force, and Marines have to share in the constant embarrassment when these never-ending Army issues get presented as "military" issues.

 

[justabubba]

You do not have to be a lawyer. It is quite simple.

- Absent Without Leave (AWOL) means he was absent from his appointed place of duty without permission (Leave). The fact that he voluntarily decided to abandon his unit and leave equates to desertion. It doesn't matter what his after-the-fact developed reason was that his lawyer tried to pull.

- The Marine Corps doesn't do "AWOL" because it allows people to dance around with the term. We use "Unauthorized Absence" (UA). Just one second late for formation makes you subject for UA. This is why Marines show up fifteen minutes prior to the fifteen minute prior formation.


The circumstances around Bergdahl are highly pathetic for two reasons; personal and institutional.

1) After telling his father that he is in moral crisis, he goes on to tell people that he was captured after he couldn't keep up in a patrol. This makes him weak and unprofessional and certainly beneath the simple standards of a soldier in any country's army. After the investigation found his belongings neatly stacked and his compass missing, as well as character witness reports, it was concluded that he walked off the base on his own. Of course, years later, through his lawyer, Bergdahl admits this, which makes him a liar. It also displays his complete lack of integrity since he earlier refused to stand by his moral crisis and pretended to be captured instead. Oh...and now he is supposed to be crazy. Let's toss in some good 'ole PTSD to feel sorry for him while we are at it.

2) Bergdahl is yet another example of the many Army soldiers who have Wikipedia pages to lay out their bad behavior and lack of discipline. Lowering standards during war in order to introduce numbers is historical in all nations. But the Bowe Bergdahls, the Jessica Lynchs, the Bradley Mannings, the Nidal Malik Hasans, the Ivan Lopez', the Robert Bales', and the Lynndie Englands do not come from the Navy, Air Force, or Marines. Such a wave of insubordination and bad behavior doesn't even come out of foreign militaries like this. And didn't the Marines lower its standards too? Perhaps the Marines lowered its standards from a normally higher standard than the Army, which accounts for the higher number of morally corrupt and crazies in the Army who make headline news. Even General David Howell Petraeus proved to be less than disciplined. And when even the Generals betray their integrity and institution, what does this leave open for the young soldiers? The fact that so many soldier's feel free to simply choose to betray their uniforms and their training is a sign of a wider cultural and discipline issue all up and down the chain.

Of course, the first thing soldiers will state is that the Army has more people. Yet, the Marine Corps had to lower standards to get above 200,000 during the last decade. Did it need to get to 250,000 or 300,000 before it produced a Jessica Lynch story of incompetence or a Bradley manning? The Air Force has over 300,000 active duty members. Where is their wealth of bad behavior? More numbers is an excuse that doesn't work. All soldiers have drill instructors, NCOs, SNCOs, and Officers to guide, mold, train, and hold accountable. It's not like a whole lot of new soldiers get introduced but weren't given any leaders. A lot of somebodies aren't doing their job.

The Army also has a very high desertion rate since the Iraq war began. Army officials tried to explain this by declaring that the deploy rate is getting to them. There are two problems with this excuse. Marines have also experienced a high deploy rate and even without the wars go through greater deploy rotation than the Army. One may consider that people join the Marines to "get some," therefore there lies a different cultural breed when it comes to deployment. Joining the Army during war time only to complain about having to deploy is absolutely stupid. The second problem is that "more than 75 percent of the deserters are soldiers in their first term of enlistment." In other words, the lower standards introduced individuals who should have never even been in an Army uniform in the first place.

And the notion ...

back up gi and tell us why you included Jessica Lynch in that list of soldiers who did not serve with honor

 

[MSgt]

back up gi and tell us why you included Jessica Lynch in that list of soldiers who did not serve with honor

Serving with honor wasn't the point in her regard...

She...and her party of misfits...were caught with rusty weapons, some of which were stored away from their bodies, some were absent their uncomfortable body armor and helmets, and clueless as to their environment. They practically handed themselves over to be prisoners in order to await later Marine rescue in Tikrit. They were yet another embarrassment to the Army (and thus the military) on the world stage.

Their sad condition was made to look worse when Army personnel and officials excused this behavior because they "were only support." The implication of this tired excuse is that non-infantry "soldiers" aren't trained to clean their weapons and not psychologically trained to be "soldiers." This is an institutional problem. And there is no fixing it as long as the Army is allowed to rely on "numbers" as an excuse for bad training. Keep in mind, Jessica Lynch & Co. did not enlist later when the Army really lowered its standards. It was a routine site for Marines to see support soldiers on convoy without their body armor and weapons in 2003 and 2004. That is a fundamental lack of discipline and it translates.

None of the soldiers I listed were psychologically prepared to do their job. This means that they either should not have been allowed to enter under the radar of the Army's lowered standards... or their training failed them.

 

[jmotivator]

I'm not saying the Taliban did a Seal Team 6 raid on the outpost. His disappearance being "fishy" is not enough reason to just write off an American POW in enemy hands and sentence him to death. I was on a small COP in Afghanistan with about 50 guys. There were LOTS of exploitable holes in our security, Afghan workers worked on the COP along with about 50 Afghan national army who were corrupt as ****. Kidnapping someone would not be very hard. His disappearance alone is not enough evidence to sentence him to death.

Once we got him back we were able to get the full story and he is being prosecuted to the full extent of UCMJ. That is how the system works. We do not leave our soldiers in enemy hands because the circumstances of their disappearance was suspicious.

I have explained why his disappearance was obviously desertion and not the act of hostiles. Treating his disappearance as desertion would have been the logical thing to do, and in fact it was what was done at the time. His disappearance was only cast as heroic after Obama decided that getting him back was worth releasing 5 Taliban commanders.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I have explained why his disappearance was obviously desertion and not the act of hostiles. Treating his disappearance as desertion would have been the logical thing to do, and in fact it was what was done at the time. His disappearance was only cast as heroic after Obama decided that getting him back was worth releasing 5 Taliban commanders.

And you can present the evidence to us here that showed beyond any shadow of a doubt that he 100% definitely deserted and that was the only possibility? Please do.

 

[jmotivator]

And you can present the evidence to us here that showed beyond any shadow of a doubt that he 100% definitely deserted and that was the only possibility? Please do.

LOL!! He left his weapons behind, kept his compass, and walked off his post. That is desertion. That was the evidence provided at his court martial and that was the determination. Why do you even bother having an opinion on something that you obviously don't care enough about to know the details?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

LOL!! He left his weapons behind, kept his compass, and walked off his post. That is desertion. That was the evidence provided at his court martial and that was the determination. Why do you even bother having an opinion on something that you obviously don't care enough about to know the details?

I already knew those details. That does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with 100% certainty that he deserted. I'll repost my relevant statement on it:

I'm not saying the Taliban did a Seal Team 6 raid on the outpost. His disappearance being "fishy" is not enough reason to just write off an American POW in enemy hands and sentence him to death. I was on a small COP in Afghanistan with about 50 guys. There were LOTS of exploitable holes in our security, Afghan workers worked on the COP along with about 50 Afghan national army who were corrupt as ****. Kidnapping someone would not be very hard. His disappearance alone is not enough evidence to sentence him to death.

Once we got him back we were able to get the full story and he is being prosecuted to the full extent of UCMJ. That is how the system works. We do not leave our soldiers in enemy hands because the circumstances of their disappearance was suspicious.

An American soldier's disappearance being fishy is not enough to abandon him as a POW and sentence him to death. In this case, yes, he is guilty of desertion and he will be punished for it. It was not 100% certain at the time and one is innocent until proven guilty. You're familiar with that concept, right?

 

[Southern Dad]

I already knew those details. That does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with 100% certainty that he deserted. I'll repost my relevant statement on it:

An American soldier's disappearance being fishy is not enough to abandon him as a POW and sentence him to death. In this case, yes, he is guilty of desertion and he will be punished for it. It was not 100% certain at the time and one is innocent until proven guilty. You're familiar with that concept, right?

I get it. So, do you think that five high ranking Taliban for one low ranking deserter was a good deal?

 

[Port & Starboard]

I think he will get:

10 years minimum. 15 Maximum.

Colonel Nance is known as a fair judge, and has already highlighted the "court of public opinion" as being a non factor, and a bit irritating to him......especial the Trump rhetoric during the campaign.

 

[Johnson]

Not really. Obots spent 8 years blaming and bashing Bush. Now only 8 months out of office, these same people demand Obama be free of criticism. Sorry, that's not going to happen. Hell, there are liberals here still bashing Reagan. So no matter how hard you guys try, Obama wont be getting his safe space any time soon.

Personally I blame this whole mess on Rutherford B. Hayes!

 

[jmotivator]

I already knew those details. That does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with 100% certainty that he deserted.

Hah! It is hillarious to see you guys still arguing this lame point even after the court has ruled the obvious conclusion based on the evidence. :lamo

We already knew before the absurd recovery deal that the Army had determined that the absence was desertion. The administration also tried to claim that their haste was predicated on Bergdahl's failing health.... now try to jibe that BS excuse with how the same administration dealt with Otto Wambier who was in fact on death's door in North Korea.

Just face it, the Bergdahl fiasco is a severe **** up by the Obama administration and everyone who was willing to look at the facts have known this for a long time... while those who refuse to look at the facts are still ignoring the facts even after the court has ruled.

 

[Common Sense 1]

remove

 

[Common Sense 1]

I already knew those details. That does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with 100% certainty that he deserted. I'll repost my relevant statement on it:

An American soldier's disappearance being fishy is not enough to abandon him as a POW and sentence him to death. In this case, yes, he is guilty of desertion and he will be punished for it. It was not 100% certain at the time and one is innocent until proven guilty. You're familiar with that concept, right?

From his own mouth:

US Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl could spend the rest of his life behind bars after he pleaded guilty Monday to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.
Bergdahl disappeared from his base in Afghanistan in June 2009 and was held in captivity by the Taliban until May 2014.
"I left my observation post on my own," Bergdahl told a judge Monday. "I understand leaving was against the law."

Absolute Proof!

Bowe Bergdahl pleads guilty to desertion, faces up to life in prison - CNNPolitics

 

[jmotivator]

From his own mouth:

US Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl could spend the rest of his life behind bars after he pleaded guilty Monday to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.
Bergdahl disappeared from his base in Afghanistan in June 2009 and was held in captivity by the Taliban until May 2014.
"I left my observation post on my own," Bergdahl told a judge Monday. "I understand leaving was against the law."

Absolute Proof!

Bowe Bergdahl pleads guilty to desertion, faces up to life in prison - CNNPolitics

But the Obama defense team will continue to insist that the obvious truth that everyone knew based on the presented facts was unknowable.

 

[justabubba]

Serving with honor wasn't the point in her regard...

She...and her party of misfits...were caught with rusty weapons, some of which were stored away from their bodies, some were absent their uncomfortable body armor and helmets, and clueless as to their environment. They practically handed themselves over to be prisoners in order to await later Marine rescue in Tikrit. They were yet another embarrassment to the Army (and thus the military) on the world stage.

Their sad condition was made to look worse when Army personnel and officials excused this behavior because they "were only support." The implication of this tired excuse is that non-infantry "soldiers" aren't trained to clean their weapons and not psychologically trained to be "soldiers." This is an institutional problem. And there is no fixing it as long as the Army is allowed to rely on "numbers" as an excuse for bad training. Keep in mind, Jessica Lynch & Co. did not enlist later when the Army really lowered its standards. It was a routine site for Marines to see support soldiers on convoy without their body armor and weapons in 2003 and 2004. That is a fundamental lack of discipline and it translates.

None of the soldiers I listed were psychologically prepared to do their job. This means that they either should not have been allowed to enter under the radar of the Army's lowered standards... or their training failed them.

what i glean from your post is that Jessica Lynch did nothing to be listed in a group who dishonored themselves in military service
share with me if i got that wrong

 

[Herkamer63]

Wow, that never stopped you all from bashing George W Bush for eight years after he left office. No one made President Barack H Obama go into the Rose Garden with Bergdahl's parents. President Obama traded five high ranking Taliban for one US Army deserter. He dit that on his own. Therefore, he bears the criticism now as his "hero" Bowe Bergdahl pleads guilty to desertion.

The funny thing is they're still blaming Bush (alongside with Trump) for all of America's problems today. They still can't let go of the election of 2000 (BTW, that was 17 years ago).

 

[MSgt]

what i glean from your post is that Jessica Lynch did nothing to be listed in a group who dishonored themselves in military service
share with me if i got that wrong

In terms of betrayal, she did nothing wrong. She is merely another example of bad soldiering in what is supposed to be a professional army. Consider the issue...

When soldiers think it is alright to have rusty weapons and to travel about in a war zone without wearing their protection, one needs to consider how that fundamental discipline problem translates throughout and up and down the chain of command. For her unit to have been caught with rusty weapons and even without their weapons on their person means that the peer pressure to do the right thing was non-existent. It means that the unit's leadership failed them and their trusted NCOs allowed it. The Army presents itself as a "soft target." This is historical and Jessica Lynch's story has everything to do with the greater problem within the Army.

Now, do you think that those others who did dishonor themselves and the uniform had a base of fundamental discipline going on in their heads? Do you think professionalism was a fundamental core attribute among those who considered (and still consider) betrayal as an option-able act? They lacked Esprit De Corps and held no sense of loyalty. Obviously these are individuals, but there is truth to the notion that soldiers aren't generally trained in their branch's glorious history. There is a psychological disconnect among many soldiers to the greater ideal of what they are. This too translates to a lack of respect. The notion that revealing secret documents to the Internet or abandoning your post hurts the pride of your branch isn't even a thought for them.

It starts with the basics. And this is why international disasters like Mai Lai, Black Hawk Down (Clinton shares in this blame), or the Jessica Lynch story always come from the same branch that creates the Bergdahl's and Mannings. Hell, even with Hasan making it obvious to his command that he was traveling the extremist route, the Army did nothing to lock his lack of discipline down before he was allowed to murder his fellow soldiers. Where are the extremists in the other branches?

Lynch & Co. is absolutely a part of the systematic issue that seems to always present itself from one war to the next. And with those unnecessary incidents come the dishonorable who feel that they have the freedom to betray what they really don't even care about. And it happens because the Army is satisfied with the excuses that allow business as usual.

 

[braindrain]

In terms of betrayal, she did nothing wrong. She is merely another example of bad soldiering in what is supposed to be a professional army. Consider the issue...

When soldiers think it is alright to have rusty weapons and to travel about in a war zone without wearing their protection, one needs to consider how that fundamental discipline problem translates throughout and up and down the chain of command. For her unit to have been caught with rusty weapons and even without their weapons on their person means that the peer pressure to do the right thing was non-existent. It means that the unit's leadership failed them and their trusted NCOs allowed it. The Army presents itself as a "soft target." This is historical and Jessica Lynch's story has everything to do with the greater problem within the Army.

Now, do you think that those others who did dishonor themselves and the uniform had a base of fundamental discipline going on in their heads? Do you think professionalism was a fundamental core attribute among those who considered (and still consider) betrayal as an option-able act? They lacked Esprit De Corps and held no sense of loyalty. Obviously these are individuals, but there is truth to the notion that soldiers aren't generally trained in their branch's glorious history. There is a psychological disconnect among many soldiers to the greater ideal of what they are. This too translates to a lack of respect. The notion that revealing secret documents to the Internet or abandoning your post hurts the pride of your branch isn't even a thought for them.

It starts with the basics. And this is why international disasters like Mai Lai, Black Hawk Down (Clinton shares in this blame), or the Jessica Lynch story always come from the same branch that creates the Bergdahl's and Mannings. Hell, even with Hasan making it obvious to his command that he was traveling the extremist route, the Army did nothing to lock his lack of discipline down before he was allowed to murder his fellow soldiers. Where are the extremists in the other branches?

Lynch & Co. is absolutely a part of the systematic issue that seems to always present itself from one war to the next. And with those unnecessary incidents come the dishonorable who feel that they have the freedom to betray what they really don't even care about. And it happens because the Army is satisfied with the excuses that allow business as usual.

I can name plenty of occasions of Marines displaying a lack of discipline and bringing dishonor to the Corps. Does that mean the Corps is suffering for some giant institutional problem. This is not a Army only problem but a human one and a reflection of the society that the military draws from. And yes a big part of why the Army is effected more then the Marine Corps is due to both size and scope of missions. If tomorrow the Marines were told they needed to get as large as the Army as well as have as many MOSs they would be facing the exact same problems.
Further you adding the black hawk down incident as an example of Army poor performance, shows that either you simply have zero actual knowledge of the entire event or that you are simply blinded by your anti Army bias. Not sure which it is.

 

[Port & Starboard]

In terms of betrayal, she did nothing wrong. She is merely another example of bad soldiering in what is supposed to be a professional army. Consider the issue...

When soldiers think it is alright to have rusty weapons and to travel about in a war zone without wearing their protection, one needs to consider how that fundamental discipline problem translates throughout and up and down the chain of command. For her unit to have been caught with rusty weapons and even without their weapons on their person means that the peer pressure to do the right thing was non-existent. It means that the unit's leadership failed them and their trusted NCOs allowed it. The Army presents itself as a "soft target." This is historical and Jessica Lynch's story has everything to do with the greater problem within the Army.

Now, do you think that those others who did dishonor themselves and the uniform had a base of fundamental discipline going on in their heads? Do you think professionalism was a fundamental core attribute among those who considered (and still consider) betrayal as an option-able act? They lacked Esprit De Corps and held no sense of loyalty. Obviously these are individuals, but there is truth to the notion that soldiers aren't generally trained in their branch's glorious history. There is a psychological disconnect among many soldiers to the greater ideal of what they are. This too translates to a lack of respect. The notion that revealing secret documents to the Internet or abandoning your post hurts the pride of your branch isn't even a thought for them.

It starts with the basics. And this is why international disasters like Mai Lai, Black Hawk Down (Clinton shares in this blame), or the Jessica Lynch story always come from the same branch that creates the Bergdahl's and Mannings. Hell, even with Hasan making it obvious to his command that he was traveling the extremist route, the Army did nothing to lock his lack of discipline down before he was allowed to murder his fellow soldiers. Where are the extremists in the other branches?

Lynch & Co. is absolutely a part of the systematic issue that seems to always present itself from one war to the next. And with those unnecessary incidents come the dishonorable who feel that they have the freedom to betray what they really don't even care about. And it happens because the Army is satisfied with the excuses that allow business as usual.

Lynch wasn't a bad soldier. She was the result of the poor leadership above her...............NCO's and officers.