Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Bergdahl, Obama Made the Least Bad Choice
President Obama has come under enormous criticism for his handling of the repatriation of Sgt Bergdahl. As always, he couldn’t help but do it in the most grandstanding way possible. The central decision, though, was the best of a bad set of choices. I’m not convinced by any of the arguments that I’ve seen here or elsewhere on the web that he could have done this much differently.
Here then, are the complaints:
We Negotiated With Terrorists
Of course we did. The Taliban have the upper hand in Afghanistan and they know it. We were always going to have to give up something to get him back; it was just a matter of negotiating down to the smallest number of prisoners they were willing to exchange for him.
But He’s a Deserter
Suppose he had been captured in action, as some accounts say. After losing a certain number of men trying to free him, the military would have decided the cost was too high and we would have been forced to negotiate anyway.
We Should Have Left Him to Rot
Had Obama done that, would everyone on the right be backing him up on that decision? Or would everyone be talking about how he cravenly left one of our brave warriors behind? Obama has, for once, acted according to principle: you don’t leave anyone behind. To make that happen, he’s had to push other moral considerations aside.
He Needs to be Tried
After five years in captivity, there may not be enough of Bowe Bergdahl left inside the head of Sergeant Bergdahl to have a trial. Were his genitals cut off? How many times was he raped? How many times was he beaten? How much brain damage has he incurred as a result of five years of malnutrition, exposure, and isolation? Has he picked up some chronic disease in captivity? After some rehabilitation, he might be propped up in a chair and made to face a court-martial, but what are you going to do to him that hasn’t been done already?
But He’s a Deserter
When did this first start to show up, specifically? How long before he wandered off? Was he ever really cut out for infantry duty or did a desperate military send him to the front because they needed a warm body to fill a slot? And when he first started showing signs of disloyalty, was that dealt with or did everyone just sort of cross their fingers and hope he could hold it together for a few more months?
We were told early on that “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.” True then, true now. Expediency and exigency are the foundation on which the Global War on Terror was built. It’s a system that has served everyone stateside very well; the actual consequences of this way of doing things have been borne entirely by the man in uniform. An investigation may show that Bergdahl failed his responsibilities, but who in the American government is ever going to be held responsible for this mess in the first place? Loyalty is a two-way street.
Obama Broke the Law
Yes he did. But realistically, was Congress going to think this through reasonably and approve the swap or would they have used Bergdahl as a political football? The administration claims his health was deteriorating quickly enough that the stipulated 30 days was too long to wait. Even if that proves to be another one of their lies, was five years not long enough to wait? What, other than moral grandstanding, would our congressmen have done with those thirty days?
Published in General
Heroic men made heroic efforts to takeBengdahl back. They died heroes. Had one of those men been taken prisoner or hostage and eventually died in captivity, he would have died a hero. These are some of the reasons we call our fighting men and women heroes. But a hero would be shamed by being the object of a swap of such obvious disproportion. He would understand that the US overpaid for his release, by an objectively huge margin. A hero would have rather died in custody.
This is not a rap on Bengdahl, it is a rap on decision-makers who had their priorities in the wrong place. The “health” argument is ridiculous.
If it is true that Bengdahl had right of refusal, assuming that he knew the terms of release, this damns him as one of the decision-makers I referred to above; but ultimate responsibility here clearly falls on the commander in chief.
The way I see it, this post is way ahead of itself. Based on what I have heard, there is reason for the Army to do its version of a grand jury investigation to see if he deserted or not. Then it all goes from there. Desertion is desertion and the UCMJ has ways to handle it. If, in fact he deserted, then any mistreatment he might have had while with the Taliban is irrelevant to how he might ultimately be dealt with by the Army. If he didn’t desert then he is free to go on with his life as he pleases.
The only thing that makes me nervous is that, with the military being under the Executive Branch, Obama would attempt to interfere with this.
Let the law be the law and justice be served.
I’m more upset that several people died trying to save the missing guy. What about those poor people? That’s a disproportionate cost for some mantra. Leave no man behind, sure, but letting 6 people die in the process is worse. Did they volunteer for that?
Yes, but if we waited for all the facts, what would we talk about?
Michelle Malkin’s article says it’s actually eight soldiers who died as a result of the abandonment.
[Taliban] “Bowe, we’ve really enjoyed having you around these five years. Your help has been real swell. But you know, since you’re so sick and we can’t give you the kind of medical help you could get back in the States, and also since we see how much you really believe in the cause, we really think it would be best if you offer to trade yourself up, come what may, so some of our senior guys can get out of Club Gitmo and get back to the fight. What do you say?”
[Bergdahl] “I’ll do it.”
Until this prisoner exchange, I never knew Bergdahl existed, much less signed up, possibly deserted and was captured.
I wonder how many people would have known if he was left behind?
Yes, there were videos, but all Obama would have had to do was to point out the price for this dubious prize.
I wonder how many soldiers would have been all that upset if he was left behind?
Bergdahl’s release was meant to distract the public from all of his other problems. So far it has backfired.
Your main point is taken: There were probably no “good choices” regarding Bergdahl. Letting an American die in Taliban hands would’ve looked terrible on the news. And it would be sad. Letting 5 terrorists out will also look terrible on the news. But it will be harder to track down the people those terrorists (will probably) kill. The people they kill may be other Afghanis, in which case it probably won’t make the news but it will still also be sad.
In that sense I can see why the Obama admin would release Bergdahl. But they did it in the worst way possible. Ducking Congress was the wrong move. Had he brought the issue to Congress he could’ve had their hands on it and he could wipe himself of some blame either way. Just like he did Syria and his “red line”. There would’ve been time to frame the debate. Instead, he releases Bergdahl and within a few hours we learn that this Bergdahl character might not be the poster boy Obama wanted. Whoops!
You and me, both, WC. Nonetheless, do you accept that our position might not have been unanimous amongst conservatives? I’ve certainly had debates with conservatives about this in times past.
Exactly as happened with Charles Robert Jenkins
There is no clamor to retrieve the two remaining deserters in North Korea, why would there be so here?
I think more conservatives are angry about the WoT than about the Norks, but that’s a good point.
When I read the post title, I couldn’t help mentally replacing “Bergdahl” with “invading Iraq” and “Obama” with “Bush.” There are times when there is no good choice, and you have to choose the least bad option. I believe that was the case with going into Iraq, but without all the details, I don’t know if that’s the case here. I welcome a court martial trial, though. In a larger context, this is yet another jab at our Armed Forces. Anybody have a headcount on how many 3 and 4 stars Obama has dismissed? I can’t keep up. I think Obama has actively attempted to diminish and demoralize our military during his presidency. I can only speculate as to the why, but I suspect there are political and personal reasons. Whatever is behind his pathology, we are dealing with a thin-skinned, shallow and arrogant little man, who obviously resents men of real courage and honor. I’m unwilling to give him any benefit of the doubt at this point.
Raped? His genitals cut off?
What in the world makes you raise those as possibilities? According to the few comments about his current health from an official source, he’s being given nutritional supplements but otherwise appears physically sound. Seems to me you weaken your arguments by suggesting sexual torture and mutilation as what he may have endured.
There is something rotten with our military’s devotion to propaganda on this kind of issue, and that devotion may have influenced, it at least allowed, this kind of boneheaded trade by the Obama team. One of the retired military commentators on Fox said the Army had a thorough report on Bergdahl’s desertion within a few days of the event – a report that was immediately slapped with a top secret ban preventing sharing the information with the public. This reminded me of Gen. McCrystal’s prevarications about the death of Pat Tillman by friendly fire a few years back. If the Taliban had known that the average American had credible proof that this guy was a traitor it would have lowered his bargaining chip value enormously. That might have resulted in another snuff film, but it would have had the benefit of being the truth rather than the misinformation we have come to expect as SOP from the military.
SSM
More seriously, I’m not a huge fan of the “we have to wait for the investigation in order to have an opinion” line of argument. There are enough uncontroverted facts to establish 1) that Bowe Bergdahl (at best) was AWOL when he fell into Taliban hands and 2) the five Taliban prisoners we traded for him are bad news bears. While additional information will no doubt come to light in the course of an investigation, I cannot imagine exculpatory facts which would make this a good deal.
Jason…”I would only add that I’m willing to accept whatever tiny additional risk I’m exposed to by releasing these men.”
Surely it should be obvious that releasing these five men creates an incentive for the enemy to capture MORE Americans so that they can get additional terrorists released. How many terrorists has Israel released (largely in response to U.S. and European pressure)? It’s a lot more than five.
I’m not sure how strong an argument this is. Whether or not we trade large numbers of prisoners for their return, American POWs are a very attractive prospect to our enemies.
Given that we don’t have much of a counter-factual on this — we don’t have any heroic soldiers in captivity to compare this situation with — I’m not sure that’s the correct inference.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t like this and I’m entirely open — nearly persuasion, in fact — that this was a bad idea. I agree with Jason, however, that the options were pretty bad and that a lot of the Obama-Has-A-Not-So-Secret-Sympathy-For-The-Taliban to be really overblown.
It seems irrefutable that Bergdahl simply picked up and left his post. Went AWOL. At a minimum, six soldiers died trying to retrieve him. It seems clear that this was the conclusion of the Army at the time.
Bergdahl went AWOL. Six soldiers died trying to retrieve him.
I don’t believe we had any obligation to bring him back. We weren’t leaving him behind, he walked out on his own volition.
The least worst choice would have been to let him stay with the Taliban. Left him to rot if you will.
Since 2000 four of my children have served in the military. Had these been the circumstances with any of them, I would not believe any different.
Maybe some conservatives would like to soften the blow, but most right-wingers, especially libertarians, seem to want people to be free to make bad choices and learn from the consequences. Have you been debating the “no man left behind” principle, or the “suffer the consequences” principle with conservatives?
I think the opinion that matters most (right or left) is that of the servicemen. And they seem to be universally angry.
These have been standard practices for Muslims holding Westerners; documented since the first Iraq war.
[EDIT: and it was commonly done to Russians in Afghanistan. I mention this not in the sense that if he went through these things, it makes up for what he did, but because he still has to be able to understand and participate in his own defense if he’s brought before a court-martial. If he’s been through all that, he may not be all there mentally anymore. For example, people were puzzled why Patty Hearst sided with her captors, the Symbionese Liberation Army, but her breakdown is less mysterious when you learn that she was kept in a closet and raped several times a day. If he’s been through that sort of thing, I doubt it would be widely reported.]
I think that you’re assuming knowledge of the desertion, though. If you assume that Bergdahl was an awesome guy, blaming him for choosing to serve his country isn’t going to be a strong argument. I agree that he wasn’t a high profile guy before, but if he needed medical care and the Taliban said they were trying to negotiate his return, then he died, I’d have thought that a few of the AmCon wing of the party would have taken up his cause.
Two thoughts. One, you didn’t even mention the oddity of the “We accept your starting offer of five of the world’s worst human rights violating terrorists” without even a bit of push-back.
But mostly I think the big problem with this whole fiasco was not that Obama said “Hey everybody, I’m not going to lie. This one’s a tough one. And here’s what we need to do to get this guy back.” He said, “Welcome to the Rose Garden to celebrate this American hero!”
And I really think it was that aspect that soiled the whole deal. Once people realized “oh wait, this guy got actual loyal folks killed?” and what not, they just couldn’t get behind whatever shenanigans went on.
So when is P. Obama going to open up negotiations with the North Koreans for the two remaining US deserters they have?
Funny how no one is commenting on how the Administration is now verbally attacking the people who put their lives on the line to attempt to rescue Pvt Bergdahl.
edited to correct my continual misspelling of his name.
I don’t know if this changes anything in your mind, or in mine really, but I have read reports that our government talked them down from twenty. I also don’t understand why everything he does has to be a miracle.
As Bob Woodward has said, this is Obama’s war. According to Gates’ book, Obama ordered an intensification of our effort in Afghanistan, while admitting privately that he expected it to fail. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/182365/
Maybe it’s true that 5 Taliban commanders for one soldier of questionable loyalty WAS the best he could do: A view from Australia:
I don’t understand the US Army’s actions. This guy was a PFC when he deserted. He left a note so they would know he left intentionally. The US Army then put men at risk to retrieve him, and kept giving him promotions. I wonder if any of his peers didn’t get promoted with him? What must his fellow soldiers think?