The Crusades pitted one set of invaders against another.
So the military believes that one of their own should be deliberately left in the hands of the enemy without trial? Either it’s an emotional response or there must be damn good evidence of these accusations (not that it’s necessarily right even if there were).
Does anyone know what the combatant status of the 5 Taliban actually was? Are we technically “negotiating with terrorists” as we would if they were al-Qaeda?
Maybe I’m about to give the administration too much credit. But given that the political benefit to Obama from doing this has been zero, I suspect that there’s some strategic rationale here and that the exchange was decidedly not for domestic US consumption.
My guess is that in the absence of an open-ended military commitment to Afghanistan, and given that we have not succeeded in eradicating the Taliban, it seems like our options are to leave the country with the Taliban either relatively strong or relatively weak. Presumably the strategic benefit here is that reconciliation with some of the less hardline Taliban sows disunity in their ranks, between the true believers and those they consider to be sellouts.
You know I would have thought this too many years ago, but here on the Dope I read a post by Alessan that described the promise made to Israeli citizens in exchange for their sacrifice. It was very moving. It was an actual foreign word - I can’t do it justice in summary. But the idea that the Israeli government would go to the ends of the Earth to recover the bodies of its fallen in respect for the families and to the promise made was particularly moving. I can’t begin to understand the difference in perspective, but after reading the post I had no issue over the actions in this regard.
I don’t think there is a good blanket policy of negotiation that we can follow. We can try to stick to an ideal but understand that in the dirty world of terrorism, there will be situations that fall outside of the neat lines of black and white we like to paint the world in. I don’t think we should generally be negotiating with terrorists, but occasionally its fine. I don’t really think that doing it once in a while encourages them any more than our policies already do
This is 100% correct, and I don’t fault Obama for his decision. Nevertheless, the issue could have been a lot simpler if (1) the “War on Terror” in general and the legal status of Guantanamo detainees wasn’t the kind of murky moral and legal morass that they have become, (2) the current GOP didn’t have a well-deserved reputation as knee-jerk obstructionists, and (3) the executive didn’t have this obsession with secrecy such that not nearly enough members of the legislative branch are briefed on matters like this, a fact which has led to a mutual distrust that breeds over-speculation.
It is incredibly unlikely the five men released pose any kind of threat to U.S. interests (they’re stuck in Qatar for another year anyway). But given the secrecy surrounding their detention or even the details of their identities, we really can’t say that for sure. And given the usual GOP suspects in Congress, even if their claims have merit they’ve acted in such bad faith with this president that no one outside of the Fox News bubble is going to listen to them anyway.
So, the Taliban thinks the war is over? That’s great!!
Oh wait, they don’t.
But we do. That’s a public commitment.
Ha, I bet they think they won it too!
Oh wait, they did.
I think Brainglutton has a fair point here. The Taliban are not international terrorists - they are regional combatants in a war that is ending.
You can withhold an al-Qaida leader indefinitely, because that’s a war without end. However, I think a new legal regime is sorely required here, as indefinite detention without trial is abhorrent.
But a Taliban leader? If the war in Afghanistan is official over, how do you justify continuing to hold them?
That said, if it turns out that Bergdahl was actually a deserter who sympathized with the enemy, then this is a spectacularly bad PR move for the administration. Which wouldn’t surprise me, because I think they’re largely a bunch of incompetents. But in any event, if that’s what Bergdahl was, then I should hope that he goes straight into a military jail when he comes home, to stand trial for desertion.
The real scandal will be if he is an actual deserter but the Obama administration twists arms or pardons him to avoid a public spectacle. Even worse, if they parade him around as a hero for PR reasons. That would be devastating to military morale.
Obama goes after American citizens fighting with terrorists and it’s “how dare Obummer assassinate an American citizen (no matter what they’ve done),” but when he gets an American citizen (who never fought with terrorists) back with no blood shed its, “yeah, well this American citizen was probably a deserter anyway …”
The right wing needs to make up their minds over what should and shouldn’t be done with American citizens they don’t like. Check that … probably a bad idea, come to think of it.
-
If the enemy is holding one of ours, we bring them back, no matter the cost. If he was a traitor, that determination rests with the military justice system, NEVER with the enemy nor with hearsay.
-
One of ours, even a criminal, is worth a hundred or more Taliban.
-
The Taliban is already highly motivated to kill/capture Americans. It’s not possible to increase their desire for this goal. If this deal does anything, it strengthens the incentive to keep their captives alive.
Al-Awlaki did not fight alongside anyone. Get your facts straight.
Right. It’s telling that this is the only prisoner they had, and he was captured under what certainly appear to be highly unusual circumstances. If they were able to capture more Americans, they would already be doing so. They may well want to capture more prisoners to exchange, but that won’t matter, because it would appear that they can’t.
for starters Berdahl was never a Sergeant. Wiki says he was given this rank in absentia in 2011. He left his post in 2009. His comrades say he talked about crossing the border into Pakistan and just walking away. They also said he asked if he could leave the area with his gun and night vision goggles. He was refused this and subsequently left with nothing but a compass. Since then the death of 6 people are attributed to missions searching for him. Those involved had to sign a non-disclosure statement.
It’s been 5 years and in that time the government has attempted to keep what happened quiet. This isn’t a situation that cropped up over night requiring immediate action. The President could have involved Congress with a phone call. This complete disregard for the law and in deference to the wishes of the Afghan government makes no sense.
This and other reporting suggests to me he had a mental breakdown. Who would not go after a comrade who was suffering from a mental breakdown out in the desert, in enemy territory, unarmed with no food or water.
How did the government keep it quiet if all this shit is available on the interwebs. Did none of those Congress-critters read the interwebs? How do you know that his present health condition did not require immediate attention or death? Were you his attending Physician? Do you think that Congress (you know which one I’m talking about) wouldn’t try to throw a monkey wrench into the negotiations? Finally: would you want this congress to intervene if it was your son?
If this had been Pat Tillman and a Rethuglican Prez the GOP would be creaming their pants and declaring a national fucking holiday.
None of the troops around him suggested he was having mental issues or a breakdown. anything is possible but at this point you’re shaking the 8 ball of excuses to see what comes up.
yes, if he deserted and caused the deaths of others searching for him.
the Rethuglican Prez. Really? This is your reasoned argument in support of releasing 5 major terrorists in trade for someone billed as a deserter by his fellow troops and responsible for the deaths of those looking for him. You realize the opinion of the troops involved existed prior to the President’s involvement?