Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My guess would be that that he meant that he wasn't actively avoiding the people that went out to look for him and that caused them to get hurt?

He did make the active decision to avoid his military service by initially slipping away though. The reason the military had to keep on looking for him was because they couldn't find him after he got captured, but it wasn't because he was hiding from them. The extended search and resulting injuries while he was captured wasn't his intend, but it was caused by his initial decision to walk away from his post in the middle of nowhere surrounded by people that would love to have an american soldier to capture.

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Not surprised. Not upset either. Dude's life is beyond fethed, and will never be un-fethed. He's paid for what happen, and will continue paying the rest of his life.

What kills me is how I've been called a disgrace to the uniform, for voicing that opinion on other venues.

Dishonorable discharge, well that's never working in a govement job ever again.

And name. Yeah his life is not going to be easy by any factor.

He'll wait a couple years and get the BCD changed.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for 'seriousness of the action' and 'past precedence', I have a family member who went AWOL a couple of weeks before a deployment and turned themselves in about 5 months later.

He got 10 months in a disciplinary barracks and a BCD. I personally thought that was a light sentence.

Deserting in an active combat theater/misconduct in the face of the enemy or whatever the charge Bergdahl pled guilty to SHOULD get you more of a sentence than a stateside AWOL...

He did get more then that. His actions directly resulted in him spending 5 years in captivity, as a Prisoner of War.

I don't know why people keep acting like that doesn't mean anything.

No, he did not get more. He got a BCD. Other troops actions and the consequences don't effect sentencing. For example, the family member I referenced basically lived homeless for a few months. Boo Hoo Hoo. Did not and should not have effected his sentence. Walking to the bad guys tends to make folks lose sympathy when the bad guys take you in but don't treat you as nice as you had hoped.

He got 5 years of isolation and torture at the hands of the enemy.

Stop pretending he didn't get punished and just admit that you are pissed because he didn't suffer at our hands instead.

The argument is not "he didn't get punished", the argument is "we didn't get to be the ones that punished him".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Other troops actions and the consequences don't effect sentencing.

If what happened to him doesn't matter, then whatever happened to anybody else doesn't matter either.

You have two options here:

1) Consequences don't matter: Getting captured and held prisoner for 5 years is either the same matter-of-fact consequence or running away as getting injured while looking for someone that ran away, and has no effect on anything.
2) Consequences matter: Getting captured and held prisoner for 5 years is a consequence that should be taken into consideration when it comes to sentencing, the same as the injuries sustained by those that were looking for him.

You can't really have it both ways, you are trying to have what happened matter except when you don't want it to matter.

So he has almost no chance of getting a job, no chance of getting an education, and not eligible for any sort of government benefits. There doesn't appear to be any benefit to him to even try to be a productive member of society...

 Bromsy wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?

Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?

When you are being tortured and held prisoner, are you able to run away freely and avoid people?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?

Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?

When you are being tortured and help prisoner, are you able to run away freely and avoid people?

Our Code of Conduct does require us to make every effort possible to escape. There is the question of, how much did he try? I don't really know the answer to that.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?

Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?

When you are being tortured and help prisoner, are you able to run away freely and avoid people?

Yes, we make movies about that. He was certainly avoiding the military when he deserted.

I think part of the disconnect here on the military vs civilian view on this... you are all aware he could have basically just quit right?

If you walk up to your first sergeant or LT or whatever and just say "I can't do this anymore. I'm going to lose it." you might have to jump through some hoops, but they will get you out of there, because no one wants you watching their back if you aren't committed. That's why we have a volunteer military now. If you flat out quit like that you will probably face some negative consequences, but not on par with five years of 'torture' at the hands of the Taliban. I think that's why this case infuriates so many military people - there are real legitimate ways to repudiate your oaths and give up on the job that don't involve wandering off on your own like a crazy person. But he had to do this, because reasons, and so we had to trade terrorists for him and people had to get hurt looking for him.

I'm not up on the legalities but is there a way to stop him getting it changed to a BCD or is that just a 100% thing?

 Bromsy wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?

Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?

When you are being tortured and help prisoner, are you able to run away freely and avoid people?

Yes, we make movies about that. He was certainly avoiding the military when he deserted.

No we don't. Stop it. He avoided the military when he deserted. But he was then captured and tortured for 5 years with no way of escaping. Unless you are saying he would have rather been tortured than saved, which is a ridiculous stance to take.

I think part of the disconnect here on the military vs civilian view on this... you are all aware he could have basically just quit right?

Whaaaaaaaaaaat? No way! Is that what desertion means? Holy crap, this whole thread could have been avoided if we had just known that from the first post.

There is no disconnect between the military vs civilian here. Stop trying to play the "us vs you" card. We understand what happened. We understand that the Army recruited a man with a history of doing this sort of thing. We understand when he did this, he was captured and punished for it for 5 years by an enemy who is not merciful. The army messed up when they recruited him. They cannot even say they didn't see this one coming.

You can't really just "quit" the military either, it's not that easy and will almost always be considered a breach of contract. It can probably be argued that, at least stateside, deserting your post and then getting caught by the military later is probably the most reliable way of getting an early discharge. Saying "I can't take this" doesn't usually get you a discharge, rather it gets you a treatment of basically making your life so miserable that you realize that finishing your contract is a better option than dealing with that crap.

What Bergdahl did is crap, but let's not pretend that getting out of your enlistment contract is a matter of simply walking up to someone and saying "I quit" either.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?

Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?

When you are being tortured and help prisoner, are you able to run away freely and avoid people?

Yes, we make movies about that. He was certainly avoiding the military when he deserted.

No we don't. Stop it. He avoided the military when he deserted. But he was then captured and tortured for 5 years with no way of escaping. Unless you are saying he would have rather been tortured than saved, which is a ridiculous stance to take.

I think part of the disconnect here on the military vs civilian view on this... you are all aware he could have basically just quit right?

Whaaaaaaaaaaat? No way! Is that what desertion means? Holy crap, this whole thread could have been avoided if we had just known that from the first post.

There is no disconnect between the military vs civilian here. Stop trying to play the "us vs you" card. We understand what happened. We understand that the Army recruited a man with a history of doing this sort of thing. We understand when he did this, he was captured and punished for it for 5 years by an enemy who is not merciful. The army messed up when they recruited him. They cannot even say they didn't see this one coming.

We absolutely, unequivocally make movies about people escaping from confinement from a wartime foe. I don't understand why you took the time to try to deny that. It's silly. People escape from things all the time. Al qaeda is hardly setting the benchmark for inescapable prisons. However, this is all not really necessary to discuss as it is a whole deviation from the argument created by you.

I frankly have no idea what you are talking about for the latter half of your comment. I was not in any way shape or form conflating 'quitting' which I used as a colloquialism for undergoing the possibly arduous but completely legal method of separating yourself from the armed services for whatever reason and the crime of desertion, which I thought was a fairly obvious distinction but now I've had to spell it out for you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
You can't really just "quit" the military either, it's not that easy and will almost always be considered a breach of contract. It can probably be argued that, at least stateside, deserting your post and then getting caught by the military later is probably the most reliable way of getting an early discharge. Saying "I can't take this" doesn't usually get you a discharge, rather it gets you a treatment of basically making your life so miserable that you realize that finishing your contract is a better option than dealing with that crap.

What Bergdahl did is crap, but let's not pretend that getting out of your enlistment contract is a matter of simply walking up to someone and saying "I quit" either.

It'll get you out of the combat zone and away from all of the things he supposedly had a problem with. Not saying it's easy. Saying it's easier than walking off post in Afghanistan and being interred for five years.

Okay cool. Did he escape? Do we make movies about people who do not escape? Does every PoW escape? No. So we do not make movies about that.

The second part, I read what you posted wrong. Half asleep and just waking up and all that. Regardless, he wasn't going to just quit. He has a track record of going awol, which I posted. So you can still spell it out but here is the deal, it was never going to happen. The mans flight instinct is far FAR stronger than his fight instinct.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Okay cool. Did he escape? Do we make movies about people who do not escape?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Escape_(film)

 Dreadwinter wrote:
The second part, I read what you posted wrong. Half asleep and just waking up and all that. Regardless, he wasn't going to just quit. He has a track record of going awol, which I posted. So you can still spell it out but here is the deal, it was never going to happen. The mans flight instinct is far FAR stronger than his fight instinct.

Cheers, buddy. My main point is still that the whole progression of events is weird and could have been handled with far less trouble for everyone.

As far as the soldiers that got hurt and their families go, I think that being able to stand in front of Bergdahl to tell him and show him the price they had to pay (and will continue to pay) because of his actions will probably do more for them than any punishment inflicted to him by us or the enemy.

 Bromsy wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Okay cool. Did he escape? Do we make movies about people who do not escape?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Escape_(film)

 Dreadwinter wrote:
The second part, I read what you posted wrong. Half asleep and just waking up and all that. Regardless, he wasn't going to just quit. He has a track record of going awol, which I posted. So you can still spell it out but here is the deal, it was never going to happen. The mans flight instinct is far FAR stronger than his fight instinct.

Cheers, buddy. My main point is still that the whole progression of events is weird and could have been handled with far less trouble for everyone.

For some reason the parenthesis is not part of the link, at least for me, so you have to put it in manually if you are going to follow it. Still not what happened here though.

The whole progression of events could have been avoided if the recruiters had taken in to account his past history. Fool me once and all that. Honestly, the man was unfit for duty. Instead of trying to throw the book at a guy who seems to have some serious issues. Maybe the recruiters need to be looked at. Are they doing their due diligence when recruiting people? Taking everything in to account when they sign people up?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Okay cool. Did he escape? Do we make movies about people who do not escape?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Escape_(film)

 Dreadwinter wrote:
The second part, I read what you posted wrong. Half asleep and just waking up and all that. Regardless, he wasn't going to just quit. He has a track record of going awol, which I posted. So you can still spell it out but here is the deal, it was never going to happen. The mans flight instinct is far FAR stronger than his fight instinct.

Cheers, buddy. My main point is still that the whole progression of events is weird and could have been handled with far less trouble for everyone.

For some reason the parenthesis is not part of the link, at least for me, so you have to put it in manually if you are going to follow it. Still not what happened here though.

The whole progression of events could have been avoided if the recruiters had taken in to account his past history. Fool me once and all that. Honestly, the man was unfit for duty. Instead of trying to throw the book at a guy who seems to have some serious issues. Maybe the recruiters need to be looked at. Are they doing their due diligence when recruiting people? Taking everything in to account when they sign people up?

Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone. That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.

 djones520 wrote:


Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone. That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.

I think that in the same token, the same stress on the recruiters can also result in people like Bergdahl making it in. Less of the blame on the recruiters, but more on the environment that the recruiters have to function and the targets they are forced to meet?

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Okay cool. Did he escape? Do we make movies about people who do not escape?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Escape_(film)

 Dreadwinter wrote:
The second part, I read what you posted wrong. Half asleep and just waking up and all that. Regardless, he wasn't going to just quit. He has a track record of going awol, which I posted. So you can still spell it out but here is the deal, it was never going to happen. The mans flight instinct is far FAR stronger than his fight instinct.

Cheers, buddy. My main point is still that the whole progression of events is weird and could have been handled with far less trouble for everyone.

For some reason the parenthesis is not part of the link, at least for me, so you have to put it in manually if you are going to follow it. Still not what happened here though.

The whole progression of events could have been avoided if the recruiters had taken in to account his past history. Fool me once and all that. Honestly, the man was unfit for duty. Instead of trying to throw the book at a guy who seems to have some serious issues. Maybe the recruiters need to be looked at. Are they doing their due diligence when recruiting people? Taking everything in to account when they sign people up?

Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone.

I am going to politely decline that advisement. Sure, it would be a hard job. But when you make a mistake, you have to hold the people who made it accountable for it. If d-usa, who has a very stressful job as a nurse, gives the wrong medication and it seriously injures or kills a person, we do not let him go on by saying "Man, he has a tough job, these things happen." No, that is unacceptable. You made a mistake, if you cannot handle the job, you need a new one.

That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.

Sorry to hear about that. It would be a tough gig. I am not saying your father is responsible. But somebody is and it appears the recruiters missed a big red flag here. Why was he let in? Who okayed that? Why did they think he would be a good fit, despite his past history?

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Sorry to hear about that. It would be a tough gig. I am not saying your father is responsible. But somebody is and it appears the recruiters missed a big red flag here. Why was he let in? Who okayed that? Why did they think he would be a good fit, despite his past history?

the recruiters job is to fill a bus, bergdahl made it on the bus and through boot camp, which is the stress test to find those "red flags" but he passed and server for years so going back to try and blame the recruiter for missing anything is just a witch hunt really.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Sorry to hear about that. It would be a tough gig. I am not saying your father is responsible. But somebody is and it appears the recruiters missed a big red flag here. Why was he let in? Who okayed that? Why did they think he would be a good fit, despite his past history?

the recruiters job is to fill a bus, bergdahl made it on the bus and through boot camp, which is the stress test to find those "red flags" but he passed and server for years so going back to try and blame the recruiter for missing anything is just a witch hunt really.

Also some may slip the net. Not everyone is going to be screened out by the various processes and training

They might always miss the 1 in 100. That's just how life is.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Which is the usual circular argument in this thread:

- People died.
- No they didn’t.
- Well, they got hurt.
- Repeat in a couple days.

Are you trying to discount the fact that the military said people were permanently injured looking for him?

What did you read there that made you take that ridiculous leap?

Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?

Not a ridiculous leap given the history of the poster.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Sorry to hear about that. It would be a tough gig. I am not saying your father is responsible. But somebody is and it appears the recruiters missed a big red flag here. Why was he let in? Who okayed that? Why did they think he would be a good fit, despite his past history?

the recruiters job is to fill a bus, bergdahl made it on the bus and through boot camp, which is the stress test to find those "red flags" but he passed and server for years so going back to try and blame the recruiter for missing anything is just a witch hunt really.

How is it a witch hunt? It is questioning what happened? The Coast Guard caught it. Why did the Army not catch it? Why did the Army not see the "uncharacteristized discharge" for Psychological reasons? I assume he had to disclose any prior military experience. Did he lie about it? Did he hide it? It is possible, but I find that hard to believe. I would think they would do a little digging to find out more about the guy.

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Which is the usual circular argument in this thread:

- People died.
- No they didn’t.
- Well, they got hurt.
- Repeat in a couple days.

Are you trying to discount the fact that the military said people were permanently injured looking for him?

What did you read there that made you take that ridiculous leap?

Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?

Not a ridiculous leap given the history of the poster.

Nothing he said indicates what you said and nothing in his posting history indicates he would make that claim.

Why do you continue to make ridiculous leaps in logic like this?

Because at times I disagree with our military tactics, behavior of our military members, and behavior of our veterans.

So, despite 8 years of service caring caring for our veterans, being from a military family, and commissioning in the uniformed services next month, I am somehow anti-military and anti-veteran.

Which of course doesn’t change the fact that the reply to the example that the oft repeated argument of “people died” gets changed to “well, they got hurt” once you point out that the DoD admits nobody died only to get changed back to “people died” shortly thereafter was: “but they got hurt, don’t you care”.

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone. That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.

I think that in the same token, the same stress on the recruiters can also result in people like Bergdahl making it in. Less of the blame on the recruiters, but more on the environment that the recruiters have to function and the targets they are forced to meet?

A very good point. I wonder if the same pressure is on the DI's in boot camp to graduate a certain percentage of their training platoon. Someone as off the wall as Bergdahl would have been noticed in that pressure cooker enviornment and should have been washed out. It'd be an interesting thing to see what impression he made on the recruits in his training platoon.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone. That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.

I think that in the same token, the same stress on the recruiters can also result in people like Bergdahl making it in. Less of the blame on the recruiters, but more on the environment that the recruiters have to function and the targets they are forced to meet?

A very good point. I wonder if the same pressure is on the DI's in boot camp to graduate a certain percentage of their training platoon. Someone as off the wall as Bergdahl would have been noticed in that pressure cooker enviornment and should have been washed out. It'd be an interesting thing to see what impression he made on the recruits in his training platoon.

Probably depends on timing. In peace time they can be more choosey. At times they probbly had to take those who might have washed out to full the ranks.

How many people are rejected today, and would they have gotten waivers 8 or 12 years ago?

Yes, needing a waiver doesn’t automatically make you a bad soldier. But I think the number of waivers granted can probably be used to get a basic idea about how desperate we were to meet recruiting targets.

 d-usa wrote:
How many people are rejected today, and would they have gotten waivers 8 or 12 years ago?

Yes, needing a waiver doesn’t automatically make you a bad soldier. But I think the number of waivers granted can probably be used to get a basic idea about how desperate we were to meet recruiting targets.

They needed men. They had no choice but to expand the recruitment pool to meet targets.

They just needed soldiers and alot of them.

 jhe90 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone. That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.

I think that in the same token, the same stress on the recruiters can also result in people like Bergdahl making it in. Less of the blame on the recruiters, but more on the environment that the recruiters have to function and the targets they are forced to meet?

A very good point. I wonder if the same pressure is on the DI's in boot camp to graduate a certain percentage of their training platoon. Someone as off the wall as Bergdahl would have been noticed in that pressure cooker enviornment and should have been washed out. It'd be an interesting thing to see what impression he made on the recruits in his training platoon.

Probably depends on timing. In peace time they can be more choosey. At times they probbly had to take those who might have washed out to full the ranks.

In the platoon I was in at MCRD, we had a recruit that was literally listed as being dangerously stupid in his paperwork. He would pee on the squad bay floor in the morning so he wouldn't have to run by the DI's. The training platoon had a roughly 30% attrition rate, yet he made it through to graduation.
In infantry school we had a guy whose knee was defective from birth and prevented him from getting good trading scores or completeing humps in field gear. There was an attempted blanket party on him because of this by a group of other recruits which was broken up by another recruit and myself.
This all happened during a time before Desert Storm, when there weren't the demands on the military as there are today, so you might be onto something there.

There are 3 tiers, or major process you have to go through to become a full Soldier. I am knowledgeable of Army ways, but no so much the other services, even though I would venture to guess they are similar in nature.

1. Recruitment-Many have pointed out that recruiting goals were raised, and standards were lowered to meet the numbers needed for the surge. Berghdal I am sure simply made it in with a waiver based on current recruiting station mission numbers. They don't usually lie about standards, but they will stretch and fill out waivers and wait till certain windows open where standards are relaxed for a small bit.

2. Basic Combat Training-Those of you who went through 20+ years ago would not recognize much of what you see as far as interaction between recruits and DS's. Although there is still some difficutly the problem comes from BCT Brigade commanders will not accept anything over a very small percentage of failures. That results in writing in fake scores in physical fitness test paperwork. I have spoken to DS's about this and although they hate it, it comes from the top. It's unspoken and if they got caught they would get in trouble, but not doing so, and therefore allowing that percentage to be be broken also means trouble. Its a no win situation when a recruit does not put for the effort. Even the Army has fallen into the trap of not laying blame on the actual person responsible, its always the DSs fault.

3 Advanced Individual Training-This is the last step in the process and is also the last place to catch personnel who are not capable. It is usually less physical and more mental. However it is easy within the first week when they take the Physical Fitness Test to see if the DS fudged the paperwork or not. And so they get stuck in AIT for months. Every week they take a PFT and if they pass we send them on, if not its another step closer to kicking them out. But you see its not a fast process. The money spent to get a civilian that far into the process is not easily dismissed or wasted, so we keep trying to train them and motivate them. During a meeting just this last week the AIT Brigade commander asked the school chief how he could make the course more intellectually rigorous. He said he could not and would not unless the BDE commander was willing to accept a higher failure rate. The end result, zero change to rigor.

The Bottom Line Up Front is his deficiency from the CG could have been waivered. His fragility could have been identified in BCT. His stupidity could have been noticed in AIT. None of that would have been a reason at the top to remove him because of numbers and percentages. The ultimate in welfare IMO was given out by the US Army because of waivers between 2008-2015

I once had a Soldier in my AIT class. He failed all tests academically, but passed all physical tests. He was so ignorant that he required constantly someone standing over his shoulder telling him what to do. Never ascertained if it was an act or real, but as hard as I rode him, I am sure it was real.

I went across the tracks to talk to his DS. Apparently some training room person lost his chapter packet, he shouldn't have made it out of BCT but it happened.

He graduated AIT because I was forced to work with him every night until 2100 (9pm), get up, meet him at 0500 (5am) make sure he was up, room clean, etc. I was not allowed to grade his last two tests which is why he finally passed. He was a rock. He could have gotten a job as a paperweight but his drool would ruin the papers. He went on to be someones problem in the 101, despite my best efforts to create a packet to get him removed. He literally broke every barracks policy and pass policy over his 7 weeks and still couldn't get him chaptered.

The reason for this story is anyone trying to blame a recruiter would also then have to blame his DS, his AIT instructor, and the commands that set the policies preventing really bad people from making it through. There is a tiered system and policies negate the ability to stop people on a whim. My old CSM called it a meat market. Do not mentor, do not make friends, just train them and get them out and sent to the line.

So the argument of trying to shift blame away from Berghdal and put it on a recruiter is intellectually dishonest. Its a logical fallacy and they had nothing to do with his decision.

 redleger wrote:
The reason for this story is anyone trying to blame a recruiter would also then have to blame his DS, his AIT instructor, and the commands that set the policies preventing really bad people from making it through. There is a tiered system and policies negate the ability to stop people on a whim. My old CSM called it a meat market. Do not mentor, do not make friends, just train them and get them out and sent to the line.

So the argument of trying to shift blame away from Berghdal and put it on a recruiter is intellectually dishonest. Its a logical fallacy and they had nothing to do with his decision.

Horrible story, but who then should be blamed? The Joint Chiefs of Staff, for wanting X amount of soldiers? Bergdahl, for being unsuited to life as a soldier despite passing?

I'm not asking that just to be contrary, and I have no stake in the case anyways. But when people say hindsight is useless when something has already happened, they fail to see that maybe it could be used to make sure such things don't happen again.

There are lessons to be learned as far as who we let in, the standards we should care about and how we created that wall only the truly qualified can overcome. Problem is when you make it too tough to get in people start claiming serving is a right, which it is not. So there are so many things to be solved before that.

So who to blame. 100% Bowe Berghdal. That's it. Its that simple.