The Bowe Bergdahl issue

The Bowe Bergdahl issue

Should the policy be: bring home  one of our troops held captive even though we suspect he  was a deserter? Or should we leave him under enemy captivity to rot forever or when the war is completely over as declared by us? Prisoner exchanges are customary at wars’ end. We did not ask that question regarding Viet Nam where “POW/MIA bring them home regardless “was the policy,.even though some of the MIA’s could have been deserters, too.   

To begin with, while Bergdahl’s unit members considered him a deserter, resented having to search for him, and were angered by the 6 deaths resulting in the search, there may be more to the store than that.  

The media has a tendency to be  a kangaroo court, judge, jury and hangman before due process has been extended and the accused  in the media has had a chance to tell his/her story, and then found guilty, not guilty,  Shame on us for doing this.  This is not the way the justice system , military or civilian, works and we in media  have always added “alleged” or someother qualifier when we speculate in the media whether someone is or is not guilty before the person is found guilty in a court or court martialed. A person is considered innocent until proven guilty.  I see little of that happening in the talkasphere of commentators and they need to extend to Bergdahl the same policy as we extend to anyone else accused of a crime.   In fact, Bergdahl has not even been charged with desertion, which makes this media coverage  even worse.

Hello. The war is nearly over and troops are being brought home...leaving less than 10K  soon and 0 in a couple of years. Those left will not be on patrol or stuck is some outpost as Bergdahl’s unit was...so the likelihood this could happen again is statistically reduced or that a captured GI could be held for ransom or prisoner exchange.  Besides, what are we also supposed to do: leave Taliban and non Al Qaeda prisoners to rot in Gitmo for ever, even when we decide the war is over, and without due process charges of war crimes?   None of the five Taliban were charged yet; they were just being kept on ice, whether we called them POWs or not.

Negoitating with the enemy?  The enemy is no longer another country in most instances; it is an organized group of militants we designate as  “terrorists”. Times are a’changing and we need to get over our past mind sets. and get a dose of reality. Besides, the Israelis, as often cited, frequently exchange prisoners with the groups they call “terrorists”, as do some of our other close allies..

Exchanging one of ours, a lowly PFC (sergeant) for five high value Talibans is puzzling.  It does not seem like a fair exchange and there is a risk their release will boost the extreme elements of the Taliban, making it difficult for the Afghan government to keep control and look after their security.  Whether or not the released five will be kept out of the conflict by Qatar is yet to be seen.  It is a risk. However, for years we,the US,  have tried to get Afghan Pres. Karzai to negotiate with the Taliban and bury the hatchet for Afghanistan’s own good. The end of his presidency has happened and the election of a new leaders are taking Afghanistan in the other direction  because they may see it will  help their security and success.  I  have a suspicion this exchange was an attempt to make good on that new direction because it is the only reason that makes sense from  such a lopsided deal.  While the Taliban was allied  with and harbored Al Qaeda, it is not  the exact same as Al Qaeda but an organization that long predated Al Qaeda and actually governed most parts of Afghanistan before 9/11. We may not like them, but the recent vote in Afghanistan with a large turnout and pro Western winners shows Afghanis do not like them either… a reason for optimism that the Taliban’s power will be diminished  in the new Afghanistan.

Congressional outrage?  Was this lack of notice to them by the administration an overreach of presidential power and a violation of law?  There is a clause in the law, which is an out.  The President can act in a unique situation. without the required notice doing to his signing statements.  Was this a unique situation? Did the signing statement give him that power? That is probably speculation for now to be  clarified and debated later, but until then, the media needs to make that point  to be fair.  The case made by the administration is that this kind of exchange for Bergdahl has been brought to Congress at least twice over the past couple of years and Congress needs only to be informed. Congress never had the ability to stop such an exchange; it  only has the right to be be informed.

Let us not forget and praise our special forces who did the planning and actual hand off in the extraction, knowing it could have been a trick or an ambush.  Bravo, again and again.