Soldier freed from Taliban after 5 year captivity

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.

**Ahtman**

I'm afraid this tool will be let off light as some sort of publicity stunt as the election draws near.

Exactly who does this help? Not the guy who can't run again, and the other democratic possibles are nowhere near it. The only people that might benefit from at election it would be Republicans.

**Jihadin**

Actually some Republicans voiced opposition after the deal was made public. Democrats are already hammering them about it being Bergdahl was released. Now though the issue on how he was capture and came to be a POW is now tarnishing the Dems a bit.

My opinion is it'll be a no issue come elections this year since none of the Representatives or Senators had anything to do with it.

**Relapse**

Jihadin wrote:
Actually some Republicans voiced opposition after the deal was made public. Democrats are already hammering them about it being Bergdahl was released. Now though the issue on how he was capture and came to be a POW is now tarnishing the Dems a bit.

My opinion is it'll be a no issue come elections this year since none of the Representatives or Senators had anything to do with it.

Looks like both sides are unhappy with Obama on this deal:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/04/senators-say-classified-briefing-does-little-to-quell-concern-over-bergdahl/

**Ahtman**

All of which seems to argue that it isn't an election publicity stunt by the Obama administration.

**Jihadin**

Political suicide for either side to bang away at each other over it. Let Bergdahl have his fame for a short bit. Hit him with UCMJ and give him a Dishonorable if possible and take all his pay. Neither political party can say anything about that either

**Relapse**

Ahtman wrote:
All of which seems to argue that it isn't an election publicity stunt by the Obama administration.

Yep, definitely a whacked situation. I don't know how many editorials I've read saying Obama should be hosting the families of those killed looking for Bergdahl after he walked away from his post, and those are the nice ones. Even CNN, when they aren't putting Obama at the gym forward as a prominant news item seemed to be critical.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/04/us/7-questions-sgt-bowe-bergdahl-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

**Ouze**

However, many said the briefing did little to quell their concerns, with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., saying he left the briefing with more questions than answers.

Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss agreed.

“I don’t see how anybody can walk out of there with any kind of comfortable feeling that the administration from a notification standpoint, and I emphasize that, did what they should have done or what they had the opportunity to do. I mean, it was like they didn’t trust Dianne (Feinstein) and me," he told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren on "On the Record."

Spoiler:

Relapse wrote:
Even CNN, when they aren't putting Obama at the gym forward as a prominant news item seemed to be critical.

I saw that earlier. I think it's a pretty big diplomatic faux pas, if you ask me - the Europeans generally are less fond of gun shows than Americans are, and yet there he was, with them on display, flexing all over.

Also, when looking for a picture of Obama flexing for this thread, I found this unrelated image.

**Jihadin**

Bergdahl's former comrades also wondered if he gave the Taliban intelligence because the enemy executed "very calculated, very methodical" strikes after Bergdahl's disappearance, said former Army Sgt. Buetow.

Before you all jump the gun thinking he did. Remember that the locals knew the unit was conducting combat patrols/search patrols. Soldiers/Terps were asking the locals for his where about. It does not take a physic master to understand how they can predict a unit movement after awhile knowing the unit additional objective was locating him

Some experts speculate Bergdahl may have experienced Stockholm syndrome, in which he may have emotionally bonded with his Taliban captors over the five years.

I was wondering about that myself

**Tibbsy**

Like many in this thread it seems, I'm glad he's being brought home.

But if it's true he deserted, he should go to trial for it.

I do think any sentence given if he's found guilty should take into account his time spent in captivity though.

**kronk**

Breotan wrote:
And I'm afraid this tool will be let off light as some sort of publicity stunt as the election draws near. It'll certainly drive Republican voter turnout, though.

Far be it from me to ever defend this guy, especially if he turns out to be a deserter, but 5 years in a Taliban hell-hole isn't exactly "getting off light".

Unless you believe 44DudesWithCoolSwords.

**Relapse**

Tibbsy wrote:
Like many in this thread it seems, I'm glad he's being brought home.

But if it's true he deserted, he should go to trial for it.

I do think any sentence given if he's found guilty should take into account his time spent in captivity though.

Should the 6-8 guys who got killed looking for him also be taken into account?

**Dreadclaw69**

Ahtman wrote:
All of which seems to argue that it isn't an election publicity stunt by the Obama administration.

Maybe not an election stunt, but after the VA scandal it is possible that this was a calculated move to try and win back veterans. It just backfired.

**Tibbsy**

Relapse wrote:
Tibbsy wrote:
Like many in this thread it seems, I'm glad he's being brought home.

But if it's true he deserted, he should go to trial for it.

I do think any sentence given if he's found guilty should take into account his time spent in captivity though.

Should the 6-8 guys who got killed looking for him also be taken into account?

Yes.

**Ensis Ferrae**

As Jihadin pointed out, it's possible he may have experienced Stockholm Syndrome.... But I do wonder, and perhaps someone with a mental health background can help with this but.... If he did in fact go willingly to the Taliban, would it be more difficult to argue SS? I mean yeah, sure when he first got to the Talibs cave, I doubt they had a plate of cookies and tea waiting for him and they probably beat him some. But if he WANTED to be with them instead of the Americans, I'm sure they could/would quickly see that and alter their treatment of him.

As for a trial, yeah, I think there's a lot to consider in any sentencing. Personally (and I know I won't be chosen as a juror), I think that his 5 years with the Taliban is worthless next to the American lives lost in the pursuit of finding him.

**Polonius**

Relapse wrote:
Tibbsy wrote:
Like many in this thread it seems, I'm glad he's being brought home.

But if it's true he deserted, he should go to trial for it.

I do think any sentence given if he's found guilty should take into account his time spent in captivity though.

Should the 6-8 guys who got killed looking for him also be taken into account?

I know nothing about Military law, but probably not.

Desertion during wartime is a capital offense because it can lead to the deaths of others. That it actually did so might be a factor in sentencing, but given the remarkable contoversy over the last execution for desertion, I find it highly unlikely that it will happen.

Cases like this become about PR, and adding in the death penalty just makes it toxic.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
All of which seems to argue that it isn't an election publicity stunt by the Obama administration.

Maybe not an election stunt, but after the VA scandal it is possible that this was a calculated move to try and win back veterans. It just backfired.

It's possible, but there seems to be no evidence that the White House was sitting on this offer for months and was waiting (which, no doubt, would be seen as a scandal in its own right).

I think we're just at a point in a presidency where everybody has made up their minds, and pretty much every act will be spun in the direction the viewer wants.

**Dreadclaw69**

Polonius wrote:
It's possible, but there seems to be no evidence that the White House was sitting on this offer for months and was waiting (which, no doubt, would be seen as a scandal in its own right).

I think we're just at a point in a presidency where everybody has made up their minds, and pretty much every act will be spun in the direction the viewer wants.

Which is why I never said that the White House was sitting on this for months, or that they were sitting on it at all. If they had been sitting on this then they would have had ample opportunity to inform Congress of the release 30 days prior as required by law. It is likely that negotiations on this matter have been on going for some time and may have reached a point where a deal was possible. Political expediency and the potential to make political capital with veterans may have helped make the deal a reality.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Political expediency and the potential to make political capital with veterans may have helped make the deal a reality.

Instead, they went all in, and the Vets are finding out about the "ace in the sleeve" and are rearin' for a fight at high noon now

(that "ace in the sleeve" being that bergdahl may have been a deserter and all the other gak that's coming out)

**Frazzled**

Tibbsy wrote:
Like many in this thread it seems, I'm glad he's being brought home.

But if it's true he deserted, he should go to trial for it.

I do think any sentence given if he's found guilty should take into account his time spent in captivity though.

Agreed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
All of which seems to argue that it isn't an election publicity stunt by the Obama administration.

Maybe not an election stunt, but after the VA scandal it is possible that this was a calculated move to try and win back veterans. It just backfired.

CNN is arguing this was actually a step to getting rid of GITMO and it kind of backfired.

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
All of which seems to argue that it isn't an election publicity stunt by the Obama administration.

What was the news prior to this?

There's your answer.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
All of which seems to argue that it isn't an election publicity stunt by the Obama administration.

Maybe not an election stunt, but after the VA scandal it is possible that this was a calculated move to try and win back veterans. It just backfired.

It's possible, but there seems to be no evidence that the White House was sitting on this offer for months and was waiting (which, no doubt, would be seen as a scandal in its own right).

Not sure if it's "scandalish" per se.... but, there's information coming out that the DoD knew where he was located for quite some time.

Then, there's stuff like this:
Obama ignored chances to rescue Bergdahl on the ground because he WANTED a terror trade to help close down Guantanamo Bay claim Pentagon sources

wait, wut? o.O

**Easy E**

I never thought that bringing an American home from the control of a foreign enemy would be so controversial.

Truly we live in interesting times.

In other news, this trade seems like a good way to kickstart a potential political resolution to the Taliban "problem" in Afghanistan.

**Co'tor Shas**

Easy E wrote:
I never thought that bringing an American home from the control of a foreign enemy would be so controversial.

Truly we live in interesting times.

Welcome to American politics

.

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
I never thought that bringing an American home from the control of a foreign enemy would be so controversial.

Truly we live in interesting times.

The man is/was in uniform... we should always try to get them back regardless how they were lost.

But you can't tell me that this was purely just a sacred obligation to get him back. Their actions made it clear that political benefits for the WH were considered when it came to the Bergdahl swap.

In other news, this trade seems like a good way to kickstart a potential political resolution to the Taliban "problem" in Afghanistan.

Uh huh... about that:

A Taliban commander close to the negotiations over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl told TIME by telephone Thursday that the deal made to secure Bergdahl’s release has made it more appealing for fighters to capture American soldiers and other high-value targets.

“It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people,” the commander said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. “It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

THANKS Obama!

**Dreadclaw69**

Easy E wrote:
I never thought that bringing an American home from the control of a foreign enemy would be so controversial.

Truly we live in interesting times.

In other news, this trade seems like a good way to kickstart a potential political resolution to the Taliban "problem" in Afghanistan.

Many here in OT do not seem to object to the release being secured. It is inexcusable to leave a brother/sister-in-arms behind. The controversy here arises from the manner in which the POW was captured, the White House lauding him as a hero, making a deal with terrorists, not following the law in relation to GITMO detainees, and the fact that his alleged actions have caused the deaths of other servicemen.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

http://www.king5.com/news/national/Obama-defends-Bergdahl-agreement-261990431.html

BRUSSELS — President Obama said Thursday he will not apologize for the agreement that freed Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, and he dismissed critics who have attacked the agreement that freed five Taliban detainees.

"I'm never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in Washington, all right?" Obama during a joint news conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron. "That's par for the course."

Saying the United States has a "basic principle" that it does not leave any soldier behind on the battlefield, Obama said: "We saw an opportunity and we seized it and I make no apologies for that."

The Obama administration released five Taliban members from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for the release of Bergdahl after some five years in captivity.

Some congressional Republicans criticized the deal, saying it might encourage the Taliban to kidnap more Americans.

Members of Congress from both parties faulted the administration for not providing proper notice that it intended to release prisoners from Gitmo.

Obama said lawmakers knew that a prisoner swap was possible and that his administration acted quickly out of concern for the state of Bergdahl's health.

"We're now explaining to Congress the details of how we moved forward," Obama said.

Some troops who served in Afghanistan have accused Bergdahl of deserting his post, a claim administration officials have disputed.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees, said the prisoner swap "has put in danger now countless American men and women in uniform across this globe."

Speaking Wednesday on CNN, Rubio said: "What the president has done here is send a very clear message and incentive, that if you can get your hands on an American serviceman or woman, you can trade them for as many as five terrorists."

Obama said he and other officials were thinking about Bergdahl's parents when they signed off on the trade.

"I write too many letters to folks who, unfortunately, don't see their children again after fighting a war," Obama said. "I make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents."

**Sining**

I don't get this. Weren't american soldiers who are likely to be kidnapped likely to be killed also in that same situation?? How on earth does this endanger them more?

**Ahtman**

whembly wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
All of which seems to argue that it isn't an election publicity stunt by the Obama administration.

What was the news prior to this?

Elections in India
Elections in Europe
FCC idiocy on Net Neutrality
Open Carry Shenanigans
VA Problems

The VA issues aren't new, and have been a problem going back multiple administrations, so not sure why it would be treated as just this ones. Oddly, even with this story there is still news happening, as well more on the older stories, so it isn't stopping people from discussing or seeing other news stories.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

Sining wrote:
I don't get this. Weren't american soldiers who are likely to be kidnapped likely to be killed also in that same situation?? How on earth does this endanger them more?

It gives the enemy more of an incentive to go out and make an effort to capture soldiers.

**Sining**

As opposed to just killing them?

**whembly**

Sining wrote:
As opposed to just killing them?

Well... apparently its much harder to breakout those 5 dudes from Gitmo. Why not stay in your own backyard and capture some servicemen instead?

**CptJake**

It is a lot harder to capture than to kill. But if the pay off is good enough, you may accept the higher risk.

A dead US trooper just gets you shot at. A captured US trooper evidently gets you some of your captured buddies back.