I think he was only gone a few hours before he was captured. In this interview he was already in the next country within a few days: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/05/qa-how-u-s-tried-and-failed-to-find-bergdahl/
What makes you think the US ever stopped wanting him back, even if they were powerless to make it happen? :dubious: After all those years, they went to some trouble to make it happen when it finally became possible.
Show me any indication that the US made any effort to get him back for those 37 years.
Show me any indication that it was possible.
Come on.
It’s always possible to try. Show me that there was any trying at all.
Sigh … the fact that they brought him back the moment it became possible, even after 37 years, is all the evidence that should be needed by somebody trying to evaluate the situation objectively.
IOW, you’re wrong, deal with it.
Not at all. That was at his initiative, not US government’s.
I sure as hell hope we’re not doing something as ridiculous as that. I think you’ve been watching too much 24.
And that’s what made it possible to get him.
Dude. :rolleyes:
And still, there is no evidence whatsoever that the US government has made any effort to “bring our own back” in his and his three comrades’ case - for 37 years, until he basically got out himself and contacted US government to come back. And in case of his comrades, no evidence of any effort ever. Which kinda puts all that “we try get our own back no matter what” pathos in doubt - at least in case of “alleged” deserters.
Why? Even assuming I find something one way or the other, what would the opinions of an advocacy group have to do with U.S. military policy?
You’re seeing what you *want *to see. The question is why.
However, just for you: the National Alliance of Families for the Return of America’s Missing Servicement, newsletter for October 19, 2002: “We have long questioned the status of Jenkins, Parrish, Abshire and Dresnok the other American “defectors.” Until each man can be questioned, on neutral ground, we must give the benefit of the doubt to the serviceman.”
The policy comes out of the ethos. It seems that the ethos says “to hell with deserters”, as seems to be the case with the ones I am pointing at.
That’s “questioning of status” (what status - I don’t know). Doesn’t indicate any effort or call to “bring our own back”, does it?
It has come to my attention that the powers that be were (more than likely) going to release these same five men next year as the war winds down. This discussion of trading these same five men has been going on for at least four years.
The Taliban chose these men to be traded not President Obama … The Taliban even wanted money to be included too, but the higher ups said that the return of these five men would be worth millions of dollars for their cause.
They probably would’ve been released back to Afghanistan next year anyway for there eventual fate to be decided.
I yield to the wisdom of getting something for these five men … Bergdahl may very well have had mental problems before he even went to Afghanistan, but after five years of being held captive he will have even more mental problems.
This whole thing smacks of closing down Guantanamo Bay, which they say now only holds eight men left over from the war in Afghanistan who will of course be released as the war winds down to other third party countries or Afghanistan.
I say it’s time to say its a done deal and stop putting down the President or the decision to trade those five terrorist for Sgt Bergdahi.
Did you bother to read the article? A POW/MIA advocacy group was criticizing the fact that the government hadn’t made more extensive efforts to bring Jenkins and the others home. If that’s not a call to “bring our own back,” how would you define such a call?
(The article does allude to a 1996 Pentagon report as the first time the feds were actually fairly certain Jenkins was in North Korea in the first place, as opposed to simply having deserted and made a new life for himself somewhere unknown. I’ve never seen that report; are you familiar with it?)
According to wikipedia there are 46 still there.
I wonder what the Afghan government will do to these 5 guys if they return. Surely they aren’t going to just grant them entry and say: Welcome back!
Yes, and it confirms that the US government was doing nothing to “bring them home” because they were deserters. Contrary to the pathos expressed on this thread.
I don’t quite agree. The Army evaluates mission-risk parameters all the time. (“Where is the prisoner being held? How many guards are there? What ingress/egress routes are available? What forces are available to conduct the mission? What are the chances of getting the prisoner/hostage out alive?”) The Army or Navy has never had an “at all costs” attitude in retrieving captured personnel. Nor has the military acted as if every service member are precious little snow flakes, either. “Acceptable losses” is a cold, ugly fact of war, and they risk (and lose) lives to accomplish some goal as part of the job.
But all that is sorta a red herring in my opinion, anyway. A prisoner swap is a political, not military decision, and, as such, may very well be a decision arrived at using a different set of values than those the Army will consider. A POW trade will be decided upon by the appropriate (civilian) leadership, not the Army. The President is not required to make this decision based on how the Army feels about a particular prisoner or Army battlefield traditions.