The prevailing buzz about this guy is that a) Two US military personnel were killed in previous rescue attempts, and b) That he deserted his battalion which resulted in his capture.
Even without these two factors, if true, I am not sure how I feel about swapping 5 of theirs for one of ours. I have to ruminate on it a bit.
What are your thoughts on this development?
Quote
WASHINGTONâ€"Taliban militants in Afghanistan on Saturday handed over Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held as a prisoner of war for almost five years, to U.S. Special Operations Forces in exchange for the release of five Afghan Taliban prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay prison.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/in-prisoner-swap-taliban-releases-u-s-soldier-held-for-five-years-1401555125
I wonder why the swap was made now. Do they think Bergdahl has Intel? Are they trying to advance Afghan/Taliban negotiations ahead of the US withdraw?
I'm really not that concerned about the price payed to get the guy back. It is a lot better than what Israel usually ends up paying. I'm sure we'll be hearing about how the 5 "we" released are going to rejoin the Taliban and maybe even about how they were high ranking Taliban, but what difference does 5 more fighters make--besides, it not like the Taliban/Al Qaeda have been hampered while these guys have been imprisoned nor by the continued drone strikes on their leaders. Just 5 more cogs in the machine as far as I can tell.
Consider the source, the Wall Street Journal, which if I'm not mistaken is owned by Murdock and Faux News and of course Obama is a secret Muslim, Atheist, Commie, Nazi or something like that.
It's a pretty straight forward swap as best I can tell, but even if not he's free, no big worries. Countries often exchange prisoners and the war is finally winding down.
I think the problem is that now the Taliban has a very good reason to capture more Americans since we will now negotiate with them.
In all these years they captured 1? The odds don't sound to good for it.
Quote from: Mermaid on June 01, 2014, 08:16:38 PM
I think the problem is that now the Taliban has a very good reason to capture more Americans since we will now negotiate with them.
And before now they haven't wanted to capture any?
The US is ending its involvement in the war in Afghanistan, so by then it can no longer keep people in Gitmo as prisoners of war. If they had enough to indict them on criminal charges they would have done so long ago. No POW status, no criminal charges, no choice. They have to be let go. May as well get the last American POW in the process.
Quote from: Mermaid on June 01, 2014, 08:16:38 PM
I think the problem is that now the Taliban has a very good reason to capture more Americans since we will now negotiate with them.
5 years is a long time to wait for 5 guys. As others have said the war is winding down, we're about to leave, there's no reason to hold onto this "we don't negotiate with terrorists" bs. Prisoner exchanges are a regular thing during war, so I fail to see the controversy here.
I'm just glad he wasn't turned into a new beheading video like Daniel Pearl.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on June 02, 2014, 02:15:46 AM
I fail to see the controversy here.
I saw that his happened. Some people higher up the power ladder decided to do an exchange. They could have decided not to. No one will ever know what their motives are. They do whatever they want. The rest of us just watch. I have no idea what the long term strategy is. It doesn't make any difference. The country is run by the powerful. Some of them are assholes. Some of them are idiots. Fortunately, it's the same for other countries. So there is a 50% chance that this won't matter in the end.
Quote from: aileron on June 02, 2014, 01:25:37 AM
The US is ending its involvement in the war in Afghanistan, so by then it can no longer keep people in Gitmo as prisoners of war. If they had enough to indict them on criminal charges they would have done so long ago. No POW status, no criminal charges, no choice. They have to be let go. May as well get the last American POW in the process.
Are you under some impression that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are actually prisoners of war or is this satire?
Quote from: Poison Tree on June 01, 2014, 09:52:50 PM
And before now they haven't wanted to capture any?
Well, I think the hard line started by I think Reagan was that we do not negotiate with terrorists. Now, apparently that's not true?
Quote from: aileron on June 02, 2014, 01:25:37 AM
The US is ending its involvement in the war in Afghanistan, so by then it can no longer keep people in Gitmo as prisoners of war. If they had enough to indict them on criminal charges they would have done so long ago. No POW status, no criminal charges, no choice. They have to be let go. May as well get the last American POW in the process.
I hope that's accurate, and that Gitmo is dismantled forever. I am not holding my breath, though.
Quote from: Mermaid on June 02, 2014, 08:32:18 AM
Well, I think the hard line started by I think Reagan was that we do not negotiate with terrorists. Now, apparently that's not true?
Oh? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)
The nonstop nonsense is EVERYTHING the administration does is "emboldening" the bad guys. It's the never-ending right wing talking point. If John McCain could just replace Obama retroactively we could attack all bad guys everywhere all the time and buy the whole world a puppy.
The guv'ment secretly implanted tracking devices into the bodies of the released men. They din't even know about it,, one day they was a sleepin and the next thing ya know...they woke up....hey little skeeter bite on the arm eh? Oh no..,no no no my fellow countrymen (and bitches) they done got injected with a uranium tracking device....yeppers......now..I wanna talk about that so called "moon landing"...
Quote from: Poison Tree on June 01, 2014, 06:10:56 PM
I wonder why the swap was made now.
Isn't it interesting, if not futile, to contemplate the possibility that they turned at least one of the five, or that somehow they came up with a way to make their release work in the favor of the administration.
Basically something like aitm just wrote and somehow I missed his post as I was typing mine up :)
One thing is certain, CNN is going to milk this for every syllable it's worth.
Good point about the Iran Contra affair. How easily I forget.
I get the sense that the story behind this event will remain classified and the left and the right will bitch at each other about it for a while, like every other polarizing news story.
Quote from: Mermaid on June 02, 2014, 08:43:05 PM
I get the sense that the story behind this event will remain classified and the left and the right will bitch at each other about it for a while, like every other polarizing news story.
I'm surprised no one has called for Obama to be impeached over this, yet
Quote from: Poison Tree on June 03, 2014, 01:02:05 PM
I'm surprised no one has called for Obama to be impeached over this, yet
Didn't take long.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/4/allen-west-calls-articles-impeachment-against-obam/
I don't think you guys really understand what the controversy is. Obama made this decision without consulting Congress and didn't give them 30 days notice. I don't really care that he didn't give 30 days notice, I am however disappointed that there is a very lax additude about the evidence mounting about what actually happened the night he disappeared. At best this guy deserted his unit during war, at worst he's a traitor. Either way he is responsible for the death of 6 men.
Quote from: Alaric I on June 09, 2014, 11:08:34 AM
I don't think you guys really understand what the controversy is. Obama made this decision without consulting Congress and didn't give them 30 days notice.
I believe it has been the opinion of the executive branch that, as prisoners of the military, the detainees at Guantanamo fall under the sole authority of the commander in chief. Congress obviously disagrees.
Quote from: Alaric I on June 09, 2014, 11:08:34 AM
Either way he is responsible for the death of 6 men.
Maybe. Just because men died after he walked off his base (a shit and probably criminal act) doesn't necessarily prove responsibility on his part. The argument has been that his disappearance made the military's movements more predictable and easier to ambush, but that isn't as easy an argument to make as some want to pretend. To some degree, needing to leave their bases and driving on roads would have made the troops just as easy to ambush regardless why they were driving anywhere. Any operation taken at that time and location--searching or Bergdhl, searching for enemy/weapons, transporting supplies, visiting local elders--may have resulted in exactly the same deaths.
QuoteAt best this guy deserted his unit during war, at worst he's a traitor. Either way he is responsible for the death of 6 men.
Then it is even better that he is now in our custody to face the consequences, no?
Quote from: Alaric I on June 09, 2014, 11:08:34 AM
I don't think you guys really understand what the controversy is.
Condescending.
Quote from: Poison Tree on June 09, 2014, 02:50:47 PM
Just because men died after he walked off his base (a shit and probably criminal act) doesn't necessarily prove responsibility on his part. The argument has been that his disappearance made the military's movements more predictable and easier to ambush, but that isn't as easy an argument to make as some want to pretend. To some degree, needing to leave their bases and driving on roads would have made the troops just as easy to ambush regardless why they were driving anywhere. Any operation taken at that time and location--searching or Bergdhl, searching for enemy/weapons, transporting supplies, visiting local elders--may have resulted in exactly the same deaths.
They left the base for the sole purpose of searching for him. We don't know what their missions would be that day obviously, we do know they left searching for him. His leaving caused them to follow his movements. Whatever they may have done that day it how dangerous it was, their actions that day were caused by his leaving. Therefore he is responsible for their deaths.
Quote from: Mermaid on June 09, 2014, 03:08:12 PM
Condescending.
Not condescending, an observation based on reading the comments.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 09, 2014, 03:04:05 PM
Then it is even better that he is now in our custody to face the consequences, no?
It would be ok except for two things, we traded 5 if the top officials of the enemy in exchange for him and certain people would like you to believe he's a damn hero. Had it been 5 bomb makers I'm sure there wouldn't be such an outcry. If they were listening to the men that served with him about the circumstances and didn't act as if it wasn't a big deal and that he should be able to go home to see his family the controversy wouldn't be as bad as it is. I get not leaving any service members, but not by releasing 5 top officials.
Quote from: Alaric I on June 10, 2014, 01:10:58 AM
They left the base for the sole purpose of searching for him. We don't know what their missions would be that day obviously, we do know they left searching for him. His leaving caused them to follow his movements. Whatever they may have done that day it how dangerous it was, their actions that day were caused by his leaving. Therefore he is responsible for their deaths.
It's not true that those who died "left the base for the sole purpose of searching for him" when they died. The first two, killed 49 days after Bergdahl's disappearance, were on a mission examining polling places for the upcoming election. The next died on a mission to capture a high ranking Taliban--one whom they did think had ties to Bergdahl's capture, but it is not as if they'd ignore a high value target who didn't. Two more died while on patrol--soldiers with them maintain that they wouldn't have been patrolling that area except for Bergdahl (that they would have been redeployed elsewhere otherwise), but they would have been patrolling somewhere and, unless they were just going to abandon that area to the enemy, some US/NATO troops were going to have to maintain a presence there, right? The last of the six (67 days after Bergdahl left) was killed while trying to meet with/sooth locals in an area where they'd previously searched for Bergdahl--were they angered specifically because of/during the search? Maybe, but plenty of Afghans have been angered by others actions and the military has met with/soothed plenty of locals in areas far removed from Bergdahl.
I agree with you that Obama and his administration shouldn't have done a victory lap over this but I don't really have a problem with bringing Bergdahl back even at the "cost" of 5 Taliban. I'd have preferred if Mohammad Fazl and Norullah Noori hadn't been among the 5, but I've not lost any sleep over it
Quote from: Poison Tree on June 10, 2014, 02:04:48 AM
It's not true that those who died "left the base for the sole purpose of searching for him" when they died. The first two, killed 49 days after Bergdahl's disappearance, were on a mission examining polling places for the upcoming election. The next died on a mission to capture a high ranking Taliban--one whom they did think had ties to Bergdahl's capture, but it is not as if they'd ignore a high value target who didn't. Two more died while on patrol--soldiers with them maintain that they wouldn't have been patrolling that area except for Bergdahl (that they would have been redeployed elsewhere otherwise), but they would have been patrolling somewhere and, unless they were just going to abandon that area to the enemy, some US/NATO troops were going to have to maintain a presence there, right? The last of the six (67 days after Bergdahl left) was killed while trying to meet with/sooth locals in an area where they'd previously searched for Bergdahl--were they angered specifically because of/during the search? Maybe, but plenty of Afghans have been angered by others actions and the military has met with/soothed plenty of locals in areas far removed from Bergdahl.
I see your point.