It’s not a secret he isn’t liked by the troops. So don’t kid yourself or anybody else on this. It was a flaming waste of money and co2 to make the trip.
by releasing 5 dangerous Taliban prisons. Yes, absolutely yes. He denounced his country to his father and his fellow soldiers. They were forced to sign non-disclosures documents so most of this has been hushed up.
Well I don’t have your luxury of certainty-beyond-the-need-for-a-trial. In my world, US soldiers that are accused of desertion (but have not been tried) are still US soldiers, even if they are captured by the enemy. And soldiers that have criticized their country are still soldiers.
Any alleged desertion, or alleged criticism of the US or US policy, is and should be irrelevant to any efforts to secure his release.
His fellow soldiers no longer have the luxury of not being attacked by the people we released. You seem to forget about that part.
How have I forgotten? What does it have to do with my point? Soldiers that have been captured are still soldiers, even if other soldiers died tragically trying to find them.
your argument is in a vacuum. When you add the released terrorists as part of the equation it doesn’t make sense.
What released terrorists? You mean the released Afghanis who also haven’t been tried or convicted of any crime?
The released detainees have nothing to do with my argument. Releasing the detainees may have been a bad idea, but it’s not a bad idea because Bergdahl is accused of desertion and criticized US policy. Alleged crimes and statements of Bergdahl (without a trial) have nothing (and should have nothing) to do with whether or not a prisoner exchange should be made.
Exactly. Bergdahl could have been captured while saving three trucks full of soldiers, two buses of nuns and a dump truck full of orphans and kittens. It would make any difference regarding the value of the released detainees. The nation wouldn’t be any more or less safe because we got “Kitten Guy” back vs “Deserter Guy”.
That doesn’t make sense. If someone states an intention of deserting and they walk away from their secured area then the amount of manpower and resources used to find them should be considered based on that fact. These are finite resources. When they’re used in an effort to find him then they are not available for use to protect others.
I’m fine with what Obama did. 100%
I’m pretty sure the Taliban’s recruitment efforts far exceed the number of fighters we’re resupplying them with.
In fact, by making this deal, we might actual deter their recruitment. It removes at least a small part of one of the complaints they have against us. They now know that we can make deals with them, and keep our word. The Great Satan is just a little less Satanic, even in their eyes.
It must be nice being so certain of what Bergdahl did. Without the luxury of certainty (or anything beyond ‘there are accusations, so it’s possible’), I find myself unable to judge that this US soldier’s life is any more or less worthy than another.
I wonder if someone in Government doesn’t want to speak with him rather badly.
Perhaps they want to find out how and why he deserted, or determine if someone talked him into it.
These were billed as very dangerous members of the Taliban. Why do you think they asked for them in exchange?
As far as a recruitment deterrent goes that’s, well, interesting considering the atrocities the Taliban visits on it’s own people. I’m not sure how you can expect an ounce of goodwill from people who beat and kill children.
I am completely taken back by the attitude of this thread.
Prisoner exchanges are a standard action. They’ve happened thousands of times over thousands of years. Many US Presidents have done it. I can’t think of any reason why Obama would be singled out. (Oh, yes. There is that one thing.:()
Viewing the prisoners you give up to the other side as horribly evil is also extremely common. So what? Yes, they are bad people. That’s why they are prisoners. (We hope.) What possible difference does it make in this case? The label doesn’t matter. A prisoner is a prisoner. A bad person is a bad person.
Note that the ratio of people exchanged reflects the relative powers of the entities involved. That we only gave up 5 people given the huge disparity of power means the US got a really, really good deal. The negotiators should be praised in this regard.
The only question is concerning this soldier. There are questions. We don’t have the answers. I’ll save my final verdict to when and if we get the full story.
Because, up until now, the Taliban haven’t wanted or tried to capture US soldiers. They’re so stupid that it’s only *now *that a lightbulb has appeared over their heads and given them the bright idea that it might be useful to capture an enemy soldier. It’s only their previous total lack of motivation that has prevented them from capturing troops on a regular basis. Had this prisoner exchange not happened, they’d have no desire to capture American soldiers for propaganda or bargaining power.
Right…
Nice try.
Obama felt the need to do this in defiance of the law and against the wishes of the Afghan government.
There is no explanation for what the President did beyond a stunt aimed at improving his polling among veterans in response to the VA healthcare problems.
He’s getting his ass handed to him on NBC over this. and I’m assuming the other networks are doing the same. The soldiers who were there say he willfully and deliberately left his post and subsequently caused the death of 6 soldiers because of the search for him. The people released are the worst of the worst.
From an outside-ish perspective I must say this all seems like a good thing. A lousy five old men are not a threat in the larger context of the messed up country they will be living in. For that you are ensuring a tramautized young man can return safe to his family. Also, consider that releasing those taliban shitbags may just soften hearts and minds there.
It just feels like the smart thing would have been to do this six years ago. I guess that is what troubles me. If it had been me voting for Obama I might have felt a little lied to after all his sensible, war ending rhetoric dried up once he took office.
Such bullshit… the stated reason is a perfectly reasonable one.
If this is true, then he should be tried in court. In a US court. He’s a US soldier who was captured by the enemy. Accusations of desertion don’t change that, and have (and should have) nothing to do with whether we try to get him back.
Would you be making this same point if his fellow soldiers called him a hero and said he was the greatest guy they ever met? Because what his fellow soldiers say about him (or any other soldier, sailor, airman, or marine) is absolutely irrelevant as to whether the US government should try to get him back.
I got along with most people when I was in the Navy, but there were guys I served with that I hated, and probably guys that hated me. I hope very much that the Navy and the President would not have taken their opinions about me into account (or vice versa) were we to be captured by the enemy.