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.

Yeah, the guy is obviously and idiot, but insinuating that he was in league with the terrorists is a stretch, not to mention something you shouldn't do.

 Hordini wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

Because "no man left behind" isn't BS. Even if he committed a crime, he is still ours to deal with, and it is our responsibility to determine whether or not he is guilty - not our enemy's.

Thing is, we didn't leave him behind. He made his own decision and left the base on his own two feet.

Yea, I can see trying to get him back but not at the cost of lives of other servicemen.

 Breotan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

Because "no man left behind" isn't BS. Even if he committed a crime, he is still ours to deal with, and it is our responsibility to determine whether or not he is guilty - not our enemy's.

Thing is, we didn't leave him behind. He made his own decision and left the base on his own two feet.

Yea, I can see trying to get him back but not at the cost of lives of other servicemen.

Did they know for certain that he left on his own when they started searching for him? Even if they did, his horrible decision making doesn't absolve us of our responsibility not to leave him behind.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, the guy is obviously and idiot, but insinuating that he was in league with the terrorists is a stretch, not to mention something you shouldn't do.

Um. Why? The Taliban and ISIS have made it very clear they have no problem killing Americans. They kept him alive despite (a now shattered) stance that we don't negotiate with terrorists.

He should spend the rest of his life in prison, at best.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, the guy is obviously and idiot, but insinuating that he was in league with the terrorists is a stretch, not to mention something you shouldn't do.

Um. Why? The Taliban and ISIS have made it very clear they have no problem killing Americans. They kept him alive despite (a now shattered) stance that we don't negotiate with terrorists.

He should spend the rest of his life in prison, at best.

Because it's wrong, that's why. You have no evidence, and your reasoning is flimsy and best. And the "don't negotiate with terrorists" thing was proved false long ago.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, the guy is obviously and idiot, but insinuating that he was in league with the terrorists is a stretch, not to mention something you shouldn't do.

Um. Why? The Taliban and ISIS have made it very clear they have no problem killing Americans. They kept him alive despite (a now shattered) stance that we don't negotiate with terrorists.

He should spend the rest of his life in prison, at best.

Because it's wrong, that's why. You have no evidence, and your reasoning is flimsy and best. And the "don't negotiate with terrorists" thing was proved false long ago.

What makes the assumption wrong? He was a POS deserter kept alive by terrorists that like killing Americans. I'm not uncomfortable about any judgement made about him. You know what is wrong? Deserting and costing a fellow serviceman his life because your sorry ass deserted like a cowardly gak.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, the guy is obviously and idiot, but insinuating that he was in league with the terrorists is a stretch, not to mention something you shouldn't do.

Um. Why? The Taliban and ISIS have made it very clear they have no problem killing Americans. They kept him alive despite (a now shattered) stance that we don't negotiate with terrorists.

He should spend the rest of his life in prison, at best.

Because it's wrong, that's why. You have no evidence, and your reasoning is flimsy and best. And the "don't negotiate with terrorists" thing was proved false long ago.

What makes the assumption wrong? He was a POS deserter kept alive by terrorists that like killing Americans. I'm not uncomfortable about any judgement made about him. You know what is wrong? Deserting and costing a fellow serviceman his life because your sorry ass deserted like a cowardly gak.

I agree, what he did is wrong. It is still wrong to assume that he is a terrorist. He may be, I don't know, but you are accusing someone of being a terrorist with absolutely no evidence. If you don't see the problem with that, then there is something seriously wrong here.

You said "in league with the terrorists." They kept him alive and well fed when they've made it clear they are very comfortable killing Americans.

If you think he wasn't "in league" with them somehow, then I think that's a little naive.

Are you kidding me! He was a prisoner. If he was in league with them, why wasn't he fighting along side them?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, the guy is obviously and idiot, but insinuating that he was in league with the terrorists is a stretch, not to mention something you shouldn't do.

Um. Why? The Taliban and ISIS have made it very clear they have no problem killing Americans. They kept him alive despite (a now shattered) stance that we don't negotiate with terrorists.

He should spend the rest of his life in prison, at best.

Because it's wrong, that's why. You have no evidence, and your reasoning is flimsy and best. And the "don't negotiate with terrorists" thing was proved false long ago.

What makes the assumption wrong? He was a POS deserter kept alive by terrorists that like killing Americans. I'm not uncomfortable about any judgement made about him. You know what is wrong? Deserting and costing a fellow serviceman his life because your sorry ass deserted like a cowardly gak.

The search was a pretty big operation and made it easy for the Taliban to enact ambushes and use IEDs since they knew patrols were out looking. PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Murphrey, 2LT Darryn Andrews, were all KIA while searching for Bergdahl.

Didn't we establish many threads ago that these "rescue missions" were almost all just regular missions with an "by the way, remember to keep an eye out for him" added to the mix?

 d-usa wrote:
Didn't we establish many threads ago that these "rescue missions" were almost all just regular missions with an "by the way, remember to keep an eye out for him" added to the mix?

I doubt it.

Other ops lost assets (especially ISR, but also air and other support) to cover the search and search teams. Pretty much all ISR assets in country got re-tasked for this. Those ops were harder to conduct. Other ops got put on hold or canceled to facilitate the search. That resulted in more bad guys not capped by the good guys who were unable to conduct these ops. The extra time those bad guys had on the battlefield means more IEDs emplaced and more ambushes conducted.

That is really just the tip of the ice berg when it comes to determining the real impact this desertion had. For example, I would be willing to bet ROE changes and various risk mitigation factors were implemented as a result of his 'capture' that had an effect on ops as well.

As for 'Why' we searched for a guy that even at the time some folks believed deserted, there are reasons. Initially, there may have been even a little doubt, and you always try to get your guy back. Finding his desecrated corpse and knowing his family is watching his beheading on YouTube is pretty bad for morale.

Reporting a guy missing prompts certain actions, and again, the first thing is to try and get the trooper back, regardless of why/how he went missing. (They don't get to choose to just walk away.)

Then there are other considerations. Even as a low ranking guy, he knows things that can help the bad guys tactically. From the layout of his COP, exact numbers of troops, weapons types and their locations/fields of fire, unit SOPs, at least some knowledge of their mission, when the unit is rotating out and so on. He is also potentially a damned fine propaganda tool if he really does join up with the bad guys.

Lots of reasons.

And, I suspect (but do not know) that official reporting probably had him as missing, and even if that was caveated with 'may have deserted', again, it causes certain things to take place.

There is a definite mental health issue here.

No one in a sane frame of mind would go offbase on their own unless they are mentally unbalanced.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
There is a definite mental health issue here.

No one in a sane frame of mind would go offbase on their own unless they are mentally unbalanced.

I guess in my opinion it doesn't matter.

 CptJake wrote:

I guess in my opinion it doesn't matter.

Legally and morally it should though.

IIRC trying the insanity defense doesn't work most of the time. And even when it does it means you'll be locked up in an institution, usually for a longer time than the prison you tried to avoid.

In any case he has to stand trial - there's no doubt he left his post even if the reason is unclear.

 d-usa wrote:
Didn't we establish many threads ago that these "rescue missions" were almost all just regular missions with an "by the way, remember to keep an eye out for him" added to the mix?

Yes, more than once, but I think we've also quite clearly established that if you repeat a lie enough, eventually everyone believes it, anyway.

 cincydooley wrote:
What makes the assumption wrong? He was a POS deserter kept alive by terrorists that like killing Americans. I'm not uncomfortable about any judgement made about him.

In this country, we assume that people are innocent until they are convicted. At the time he disappeared, he hadn't even been charged, let along convicted, of anything.

Unless you think it's wise that we establish a precedent that we don't try to get back servicemen if maybe they weren't such good soldiers? That seems hard to quantify, but hey, whatever you're into. I'd prefer we make every effort to return the men and women who serve home, even if that home is eventually a brig, because it's an American brig.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
There is a definite mental health issue here.

No one in a sane frame of mind would go offbase on their own unless they are mentally unbalanced.

And this has been supported by a diagnosis from a certified mental health professional? It is my understanding that it is difficult to make a proper diagnosis across the internet. Even more so if the diagnosis is being done without the patient being interviewed.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
It is my understanding that it is difficult to make a proper diagnosis across the internet.

Impossible, not just difficult. Perhaps this is why I didn't offer a diagnosis?

I am not suggesting that there is an insanity plea, if such a thing even exists in court marshals, but there would most probably be mitigating factors.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Impossible, not just difficult. Perhaps this is why I didn't offer a diagnosis?

Then why would you say;

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
There is a definite mental health issue here.

No one in a sane frame of mind would go offbase on their own unless they are mentally unbalanced.

You don't have access to the patient, or anything concerning his medical or mental health history, yet you feel that you can proclaim that "[t]here is a definite mental health issue here". Absent actual evidence to support your claim this is nothing more than speculation masquerading as a fact.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Then why would you say;

That's not a diagnosis.

No one in their right mind would do what he apparently did so the most obvious possibility is that he wasn't in his right mind. Anyone who has been to Afghan would know just how stupid leaving the wire by yourself would be.

 Ouze wrote:


In this country, we assume that people are innocent until they are convicted. At the time he disappeared, he hadn't even been charged, let along convicted, of anything.

Unless you think it's wise that we establish a precedent that we don't try to get back servicemen if maybe they weren't such good soldiers? That seems hard to quantify, but hey, whatever you're into. I'd prefer we make every effort to return the men and women who serve home, even if that home is eventually a brig, because it's an American brig.

I'm not saying any of that. I agree with your last point, and fully. We should bring him home. And put him in an American prison for the rest of his life, or execute him if it's warranted (I don't think it is with the facts we know in this instance).

My greater point is that I do believe he was "in league," as it was put, with the terrorists with whom he was 'imprisoned' by. Does that mean giving them information? Probably. He was kept alive and healthy for a reason, and I have trouble believing it was with the assumption by the terrorists that they'd get people back in trade.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

That's not a diagnosis.

No one in their right mind would do what he apparently did so the most obvious possibility is that he wasn't in his right mind. Anyone who has been to Afghan would know just how stupid leaving the wire by yourself would be.

You proclaimed that he had a mental health issue. Clearly you must have some idea as to which one he was suffering from, so which one did you believe he was afflicted by?

And you have had sufficient interaction with him to state that he "wasn't in his right mind"?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:


No one in their right mind would do what he apparently did so the most obvious possibility is that he wasn't in his right mind. Anyone who has been to Afghan would know just how stupid leaving the wire by yourself would be.

Unless he planned on terrorist finding and making contact with him?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

I guess in my opinion it doesn't matter.

Legally and morally it should though.

Legally?Really? Even if he did have mental issues,he knew what he was doing and knew right from wrong. It may be used as a mitigating factor in sentencing, but should have zero baring on is he guilty of desertion. The legal elements of desertion don't mention a damned thing about mental condition.

As for morally, I again disagree. I can't see how his mental condition has any moral connection to his guilt or innocence. Again,it may be a mitigating factor for sentencing.

 CptJake wrote:
it may be a mitigating factor for sentencing.

Which is what I already said.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Clearly you must have some idea as to which one he was suffering from, so which one did you believe he was afflicted by?

Why clearly? I already stated that I wasn't even attempting to make a diagnosis.

I can see that Off Topic never changes.

Innocent until proven guilty. Let's not forget that fundamental principal.

Personally, I think he's as guilty as hell and deserves his punishment, but that's for a court of law to decide.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Why clearly? I already stated that I wasn't even attempting to make a diagnosis.

If you were not attempting to make a diagnosis then how can you claim, as you initially did;

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
There is a definite mental health issue here.

For you to claim that there is a "definite mental health issue" surely you must have some basis to suspect that the behaviours exhibited corresponded with a mental health disorder. You did not speculate as to whether there was a mental health component, you instead stated as a fact that there was. So which disorder do you believe Bergdahl to have been suffering from? What lead you to make the diagnosis that Bergdahl was suffering from a mental health issue?

 Ouze wrote:
In this country, we assume that people are innocent until they are convicted. At the time he disappeared, he hadn't even been charged, let along convicted, of anything.

A presumption of innocence is required of the courts, not people posting on Dakka.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
I can see that Off Topic never changes.

In the space of less than two months since this account was active how much did you believe the forum was going to change?