It has nothing to do with beer or BBQ.

…In the early-morning hours of June 30th, according to soldiers in the unit, Bowe approached his team leader not long after he got off guard duty and asked his superior a simple question: If I were to leave the base, would it cause problems if I took my sensitive equipment?

Yes, his team leader responded – if you took your rifle and night-vision goggles, that would cause problems.

Bowe returned to his barracks, a roughly built bunker of plywood and sandbags. He gathered up water, a knife, his digital camera and his diary. Then he slipped off the outpost…



http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607

certainly premeditation that he was going to leave. I can't believe that he would want to leave and go with the Afghanistan population. I can't wait to hear his side of the story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/us-soldier-srgt-bowe-bergdahl-of-idaho-pow-vanished-angered-his-unit.html

That isn't something his team leader would have given him permission to do. Even your post doesn't indicate that he was given persomission to leave. He was told that it would cause a problem if he were to leave taking sensitive equipment. Nowhere does it say that he was told to go ahead and take a walk, just leave sensitive equipment here.

Maybe he was sane.

this is what drives me CRAZY. The swiftboaters run to the media and babble about a note "someone heard about", when official reports say there was NO NOTE. NO one has seen this "desertion note". What the hell is a "desertion note" anyway?? The only "evidence" of premeditated intent not to return (desertion) are these swiftboaters with an agenda rehearsed by GOP operatives, claiming he left a note, when even the classified file on Bergdahl HAS NO NOTE, NO MENTION of a note. No note= no desertion, and that is why they are repeating this.
Seriously, a desertion note? Think about it. And if those guys hated him so much, why would he be compelled to leave them an explanation or a note?
Dear US Army,
It's not you, it's me. I'm just not that into you. I'm off to walk across the mountains to India.
Sincerely, Bowe


(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), ranking member of the intelligence committee, told Fox News on Tuesday that he looked at Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's classified file, and there was no mention of the incriminating note Bergdahl reportedly wrote:

"And I can tell you the article in The New York Times today shocked me. This note that he supposedly left that indicated that he was sympathetic to the Taliban and unsympathetic to the American interest in this conflict was not included in that file. And I'm very surprised by that because normally those classified files are pretty informative."

a couple of days ago, I quoted part of the NYT article. The latest info at that time.

BTW, has the Time retracted that statement yet?

"That account, provided by a former senior military officer briefed on the investigation into the private’s disappearance...."
I wonder who this "former senior military officer" is, and why his account is literally word for word the same as the smear mongers, errors and all. Interesting.

but hadn't been when I wrote that post.

Rosetta Stone is a CD package. Either the Soldier is wrong or the author.

It's possible. There are intellectuals in the service, and my husband fondly remembers the discussions during mid watch in the USN, but hardLy the case, for the most part, among the line infantry.

When I read Hasting's article in Rolling Stone, I could not help but to nod. The army was not a good fit.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607?page=7

And at times I especially wonder what is wrong with McCain? I suppose he is still trying to win his war by proxy

and some who ask too many questions about why they were sent to war. I've heard stories from friends who served that there's many more of those types than we think. Many joined mainly because of 9/11 to hunt down terrorists and then felt like they were lied to by the politicians.

attack on the post while taking a dump. I mean, villagers and children telling the truth to an occupying force?

Link?

wikileaks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=817444

Wikileaks reporting of Taliban messages just after Bergdahl was captured:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5039057

He walked away. He left his gear in a pile, took his compass, and skedaddled. He was probably a bit off the page.

Here's the link. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607

You can't call it "desertion" unless you know decisively that he intended to leave, forever, never to return. He was AWOL, though--no doubt.

He was caught by the taliban while pooping. The "intercepts" were communications between taliban members, not villagers. They were laughing like hell because he had poopy butt. He was lucky as hell he wasn't beheaded--that was their first instinct, to cut off his head.

suggests to me that they found him in the general area of the post. In other words, he didn't get far. Yup, the army didn't charge him formally because they weren't able to get a defense statement from him that wasn't coerced by the Taliban.

The Army isn't going to do ANYTHING with him (and I'm betting on Article 15) until he is "fit for duty." They can't.

He is badly malnourished, suffering from PTSD, and may have other psychological/psychiatric issues. They need to bring him back to baseline on those matters before they can move forward with NJP or the far less likely CM.

his head for five years and no one knows what's coming back.

How much more decisively do you need to know?

Read the article. It's pretty clear he's a few slices shy of a loaf. That's a defense and it will be a useful one in his case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/us-soldier-srgt-bowe-bergdahl-of-idaho-pow-vanished-angered-his-unit.html

I'm sure no one assumed he'd be back in time for dinner.

Even a non-lawyer can do something with the trove of material he provided.

He was acting oddly in the days leading up to his departure. It can be--and will be, I'll bet--argued that the balance of his mind was disturbed, that he was mentally ill when he enlisted, that his condition was missed at MEPS and in boot camp, etc.

This kid never had to do ANYTHING. Never went to school, if he got sick of doing something, he just quit and did something else. Never had to stick with anything.

And mitigating those comments:



An idiot lawyer could do something with that. Read the whole piece, it's illuminating. He's Peter Pan, immature, a fantasist--not quite the full quid. A few peas missing from the pod.

If his enlistment was in error, because he wasn't suited for service, a LOT can just "go away." That's the tack I'd start with, if I were helping him duck this heat.

You are absolutely correct that he was a few bricks shy of a load, which should have been picked up on before he was allowed to enlist, or at least before they put weapons in his hands.

Sounds like he got tired of his old fantasy (the military,) and started living out a new one.

I can, however, understand why his former teammates are upset about the loss of men in searching for this guy, and why some people don't think that one AWOL nutcase=/=5 high level terrorists.

Also, I don't think teh title of the OP matches the contents of the article.

NYT got it wrong:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Army-relaxes-its-standards-to-fill-ranks-2516428.php

At the time, neo-nazis and other extremists were also among those enlisting (they'd been banned since the Oklahoma City bombing) so they could get weapons and explosives training.

In short, a lot of people who would previously not be accepted were let in due to the Iraq War pressure on manpower numbers.

Ultimately, this is likely more fallout from the neocons using 911 as a pretext for launching their wish-list war to oust Saddam. Without the Iraq war, recruiting standards wouldn't have been lowered, making it more likely Bergdahl would have been screened out (without the war, would he even have enlisted?).

There will be an enormous learning curve as people try to join and get turned away. There will be a lot of "Geez, Freddy Fuckup got in, what's wrong with ME?" Of course, Freddy joined when they had way more billets than bodies. Now, those billets are being redlined by the thousands on a daily basis, and the people filling them are getting the axe as well. There are few tasks more misery inducing than sitting with a print out of billet allocations and KNOWING that you aren't off the hook until you've cut your complement by ten, twenty or even thirty percent in the outyears.

I think you're right that he might not have enlisted at all without a war to give him that sense of adventure and stimuation he craved.

I saw the video of him being transferred--he looked like he'd been "overstimulated" for a long period of time--and not in a good way. I'm guessing he can do without "adventure," at least for the near term.

Is where they maybe able to get him for desertion. You are correct on the "Intent not to Return" but that is section 1.
UCMJ Article 85 Section 2

(2) Desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service.

(a) That the accused quit his or her unit, organization, or other place of duty;

(b) That the accused did so with the intent to avoid a certain duty or shirk a certain service;

(c) That the duty to be performed was hazardous or the service important;

(d) That the accused knew that he or she would be required for such duty or service; and

(e) That the accused remained absent until the date alleged.

at MEPS and in boot camp.

Then his enlistment, essentially, is null and void. It's faulty. It's a "get out for free" card as a consequence of "diminished capacity." He can't display intent to leave and never come back, because he wasn't of sufficiently sound mind to so do.

I can guarantee you they aren't going to do a show trial on this guy. He's got to meet ALL criteria to be charged as a deserter, and so long as there is any doubt as to how long he intended to be gone (he might have been on his way back to base when he was captured--that's what I'd tell him to say), or if he had capacity to form intent, that one just isn't going to fly.

If they insist it is necessary to punish him and don't just administratively discharge him, the easiest solution is to do an ART 15. CMs are judicial proceedings, "office hours" or "Captain's Masts" or Art. 15 hearings are not. They're "non-judicial" punishment. Now, the accused can refuse NJP and demand a CM--but I doubt he would. He'll pretty much know what he's getting going in, and the proceedings would be PRIVATE. No press, no nosy bystanders, it can be as private as whoever is conducting it wants it to be. He could get anything from a dismissal with or without a warning to a reduction in rank and a fine and a brief period of barracks confinement/extra duty.

He needs to be discharged, but that won't happen until he is fit for duty. That will take a while, too. He's malnourished and mentally a mess. These wingers wanting to kick him while he's down just aren't going to get their way.

It will be NJP quick and quiet for all involved. GD or and OTH. I would like to see far more evidence of a Faulty enlistment to form any opinion on that basis for my part. I have seen all kinds serve good and bad. I had one kid that ran away from the microwave ovens due to the radiation. I was not trying to be a jerk but I reminded him that we were on a Nuclear Powered Ship and that the oven was probably not going to harm him.

They are forgetting the old: "We have to make sure you are healthy before we execute you". Lots of people forget that enlistment entitles the Service to a certain level of ownership of you. That ownership also works in both directions, they are obligated to restore you to health and service before any actions can be taken. Good or Bad.

It looks like another example of Run-up Recruiting where the only Reasonable Standard was a pulse. Then others have to deal with the 10% rule. All's good when you get your quota!

I think he's got enough anecdotal information to back that up, too--stories abound that this kid was a poor fit, early on. It happens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/us-soldier-srgt-bowe-bergdahl-of-idaho-pow-vanished-angered-his-unit.html?_r=0#

and said, "Which way to the Taliban? I'd like to join up, please!". It's mostly a given that he went AWOL. That doesn't mean he doesn't get to come home.

Source:

JUST IN - Saxby Chambliss says WH told senators in briefing that NYT reporting that Bergdahl left a note when he abandoned camp is wrong.


____ The administration briefed Congress amid a swirl of rumors about the circumstances of Bergdahl’s military service and the events that led to his capture. The White House pushed back on some press reports that suggested Bergdahl left a note at his base that included statements critical of the U.S. and the Afghan war.

“We were told today that is not true. There was no statement,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee and a strong critic of the White House’s decision-making on the swap.


read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/bowe-bergdahl-obama-officials-capitol-hill-congress-private-meeting-107424.html

the Cliven Bundy supporter and the racist rants. I sincerely doubt his objectivity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025050773

he was a Private First Class. He came back as a Sergeant. If he was a deserter, why would he have been raised in grade?

The rank increase while a pow is standard. I expect that inquiry to go nowhere. His prisoner status and the propaganda tapes place him in the same line as McCain, ironically.

McCain came home and went to work, in uniform, at OLA.

This kid will never work another day in uniform.

It's NOT the same. Not even close.

That said, he's not going to be "punished severely." He might see some consequences but nothing he can't overcome.

He's learned his lesson and there's no real percentage in it.

If he were a 2nd LT when he was captured, he'd be an Army Captain now.

Make no mistake, he's got trouble, but they aren't going to beat him to death. It's just not worth it. He screwed up and he paid a huge price. He'll probably get some punishment, maybe a fine, maybe a reduction in grade, and a medical/general discharge.

Quietly.

Innocent until proven guilty means that he is an American Soldier that was a POW. Period.

If we let some in the GOP convict him over the internet then he is not really a soldier, citizen, or anything - he is just some guilty person because some keyboard commandos say that is all he is.

The president has to act on facts - and the fact is until a jury/military decides otherwise he is a US Soldier and was in need of aid. Anything beyond that is people spinning a situation for personal gain and should not be used by professionals in decision making.

But...he has become a political football. Because of the situation I expect the military inquiry to go nowhere, but for the sergeant to be counseled to retire for medical reasons. And that will piss the Right to no end

The people who want him hanged with a yellow ribbon from the old oak tree will not get their wish.

The people who want him to be marched down the street and greeted as a hero/liberator aren't going to get their wish, either.

Michael Hastings' article in Rolling Stone is instructive as to his state of mind.

My take? He was an immature, impulsive fuckup. He may have had esoteric interests, but they weren't useful at a FOB. He should have kept his head down and his eyes on the prize.

I suspect he learned his lesson during those five long years.

his story of probably walking off was well-known even before Hastings' article. I agree, though, just a poor fit for the army, immature, a little goofy and naive, and made a mistake that he paid for dearly.

The opposite tack isn't always appropriate.

He was a poor fit for the military, and very immature for his age. He wanted "adventure" (if he had a TV while growing up, he would have known that it's the NAVY that is "not just a job, it's an adventure" ). He grew up off the grid, home-schooled, doing whatever he wanted to do when he wanted to do it, NOT doing stuff when he didn't want to do it, and I suspect he didn't like not having the option to just "walk away" like he'd done all his life when something didn't suit him.

He was just an unsatisfactory soldier. Not cut out for service. I trust Chuck Hagel to handle this sensibly. Remember, he's a Vietnam-era soldier who served in the enlisted ranks. He knows the drill from the ground up.

trying to make an outdoor cat an indoor cat. Combine that with his other traits, and it was a recipe for trouble. Agree about Hagel, I think he'll deal with this appropriately, especially given his experience and perspective in the years since Vietnam.

observations


peace,
kp

I've seen this kind of thing before, though not with the POW component!

A nation has obligations to any individual whose status is prisoner of war.

Everything else is secondary to that status.

As far as the Guantanamo prisoners being released, they're going to Qatar for a year and they would have had to be released in a year because their status is also prisoners of war.

This is how things are done at the end of a war. Prisoners are exchanged and they end up in their home country.

Now, as far as Sgt. Bergdahl's status now that he's been returned goes, that will be up to a review board and could include anything up to and including courts martial for his actions. More than likely he'll get a slap on the wrist and some psychiatric care given the circumstances of his capture. My guess is he was suffering from PTSD at the time of his departure from camp.

The Taliban is a legitimate political organization is Afghanistan. The Bush administration chose to reclassify them as a terrorist organization in order to confine them to Gitmo without trial under the enemy combatant guidelines. Sgt. Bergdahl is still a US soldier as well as a US citizen and even though he may have gone AWOL the Taliban was not aware of that when the captured him. I am quite sure the MCJ will deal with the issue of his desertion but that is a different issue. I am so tired of the republicans turning everything into a political issue.

Others made fun of him for training harder than they did. Having grown up in Idaho, he fancied himself a survivalist and decided to go out and fight the war on his own.

Far from the "traitor" the Right wants to portray. But the Right has the same "kill 'em all" attitude that Bergdahl complained of within his unit. But Bergdahl was almost as digusted with the fact that the unit wasn't any good at "kill 'em all" as he was with the fact that they were trying to employ that tactic. The Right ignores that point.

they wait for more information, I don't get the contempt thing they seem to have going on.

'I mean it, Yossarian. You'll have to keep on your toes every minute of every day.

They'll bend heaven and earth to catch you.'

'I'll keep on my toes every minute.'

'You'll have to jump.'

'I'll jump.'

'Jump!' Major Danby cried.

Yossarian jumped. Nately's whore was hiding just outside the door.

The knife came down, missing him by inches, and he took off.

From "Catch-22"

I remember that in one class after a long boring lecture by the teacher he said, "Any questions?"

I asked, “Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?”

After I left high school, I served in the Air Force during the Vietnam era.

There's a lot of insight in that book buried in the satire. I plan to read it again.

A lot more truth than poetry. And, it's about the human condition more than it is about war and the absurdity of it.

I've probably read it a dozen times.

Let that sink in. And ask yourself why GOP strategists are bringing forth disgruntled young soldiers to give character assassinations of Bergdahl before he even makes it to US soil.

I hope for his sake he didn't go AWOL but if he did then he will go to jail.

Believe me, no one in the Pentagon is interested in getting a pound of flesh from this kid. He's not going to jail. He's going to the shrink, to the nutritionist, maybe to ART 15, and then home.

There was a Soldier who defected to North Korea in the 60's and was kept as a prisoner for something like 40 years. When he was finally released he was court martialed for desertion.

They were never "held prisoner." They had jobs, acted in movies, and became celebrities. The one that left married a Japanese woman who had been kidnapped and dragged off there. That guy was trying to avoid Vietnam AND he was drunk on his ass, on duty, when he went over the wire. That's misconduct, right there. He wasn't having the same sorts of "Not quite connected with the reality of the situation" mental issues that Bowe was having. Even at that, he got a slap on the wrist when he was finally called to account--we were just "over" the Vietnam thing by 2004 and saw no utility in beating a dead horse:

We'll see what a mental assessment reveals. A courts martial is a judicial action open to the public; an ART 15 is private. No reporters, low key. I think Hagel just wants this to FADE, and I think the administration agrees.

It will cause an uproar like I think has never been seen within the ranks.

Check out just about any military discussion board, facebook page, or place where lots of servicemembers talk. People are pissed, very pissed, at what he did and the cost that resulted. A small slap on the wrist will not go down well, and will be seen from the top down as the administration being very lax on discipline.

If it is going to be that, they had best stall and delay it out a long time before they do. A very long time.

...we are in a strong drawdown environment right now, and the Nail That Sticks UP Gets Hammered DOWN. Hard. So, hey, actions will have consequences, and it's up to those complainers to weigh how much their career means to them over letting this screw up who may have mental issues just fade away. Far be it from me to tell them don't pipe up, but they need to understand how their comments will resonate from a leadership perspective. They also better not be repeating war stories from people who exaggerate, too--and that isn't uncommon when you get a bunch of service personnel around a water cooler, virtual or otherwise.

If servicemembers want to go on the record, put their names out there, and gripe about what entirely legal, appropriate, and within-their-purview decisions the SECDEF and their Commander in Chief are taking, well, more power to them. But they will get marked down in their performance evaluations--that's just not being a team player. You don't question legal orders, particularly when you're talking about shit that happens in the rarified air of "civilian control of the military." Or you do, and you're regarded as the one who will get in the way of executing the mission. One who gets political, when it's not their charge to so do.

Further, anyone complaining had better be in top physical condition, not a roll of flab on 'em, with excellent PT scores, perfect military bearing, good at their job, never getting into trouble off duty, and never, ever, not once late for work.

Do you see where I'm going, here?

Any decisions senior leadership take on this are--like it or not--entirely LEGAL. The sooner Obama and Hagel put this behind them, the better. This needs to be way in the rear view mirror as soon as practicable. However, as I've said, they've got to bring the guy up to snuff, medically, as much as they are able. Nutrition, mental health, dental--all that has been neglected. And we just don't know how bad off he is--the few videos showed a poorly nourished individual who, from a non-medical perspective, appeared to be "losing it."

A guy who deserted for forty years and did propaganda films for the North Koreans got a month of confinement with time off for good behavior. And he engaged in personal misconduct (getting shitfaced) before he danced over the DMZ. He exercised poor judgment and, in essence, was pretty much sentenced to "time served with Big Kim." This kid's issues don't even come close to that, and a good lawyer can argue that he was mentally ill (who in their right mind wanders around enemy territory without body armor and in their fatigues?) or heading back to base after rethinking his position when he was caught.

Time will reveal all, as it does, but I'm inclined to predict a low key, quick resolution to this issue.

I see what you are saying- they had best put up, shut up, toe the party line and never complain or we will torpedo their career. That is a pretty disgusting attitude.

I also know that isn't reality, or how it works. Maybe at the O6 and up level, but not down in the real Army. Nor is it how we run our military stifling dissent. If the dissent rises to the level for UCMJ action, take action. If it doesn't rise to that level, than it is still protect freedom of speech. Torpedoing careers for having contrary opinions on how discipline is handled or any other gripe isn't how things are done- nor should it be. Soldiers, including leaders, griping among themselves about decisions of leadership has been going on since the first army was created. We gripe about crazy uniform policy, we gripe about changes in tatoo regs, we gripe about changes in what discipline is considered acceptable and what is not, we gripe about overreaction to whatever the hot topic of the day is. If he gets a slap on the wrist, it won't be ignored.

My rater is an E8, senior rater and O3, reviewer an O4. I have drill this weekend so I will get a much better idea of their views, but I have been with them long enough to know it won't be "put up and shut up", not will it be favorable to him getting any kind of slap on the wrist. In fact I will be willing to bet if I stood up and used every colorful metaphor I can think of to describe him I would probably just get coffee cups raised in a toast. Think they would go along with what you describe?

A slap on the wrist will be seen by NCO's and Officers, at least in the army, as a slap in the face for their efforts to maintain discipline and standards. It will be seen as all Soldiers as a slap in the face to all Soldiers who have strived and worked hard to do their duty in an honorable fashion. At a time when everybody has seen much harsher punishments played out for those who did far less harm than Berghdal caused, a high profile case like this with a little or no punishment will send the exact wrong message across the force about discipline, duty, responsibility and the fact that we hold those who fail accountable. That is the view I am seeing in the NCO corps right now- glad he is back, that doesn't excuse him from being held accountable for essentially derailing the entire mission in the whole country for months to look for him and putting many, many more at risk.

And you won't get everybody to just shut up, and you certainly won't any support for torpedoing the careers of people who disagree as you disgustingly suggest- especially since the majority of the officer corps, at least in the army, leans heavily conservative. And the fact that conservatives are way over represented in the officer corps is exactly why I find your implications so disgusting- if you advocate they actually do that in this case it sets a precedent that it is acceptable to screw with somebodies evals because they speak political opinions you don't like- and that is scary. I know as a liberal I have been a minority in almost every unit I was in, but I have always been confident that my leaders would treat me fairly and give me accurate and fair evaluations based only on my job performance, not on my personal beliefs or opinions. I don't want to see that change for the next generation.

I don't mean to sound snarky, but haven't you been reading the military TIMES and other publications about what is happening across the services over the last two years?

Here, have a look at these articles--this IS happening. Make no mistake:

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20131021/NEWS/310210008/High-speed-drawdown-Army-ramps-up-force-outs

High-speed drawdown: Army ramps up force-outs

The Army will use a full menu of involuntary separation programs, beginning immediately, to reach an end strength of 490,000 soldiers by the end of fiscal 2015, according to Army personnel chief Lt. Gen. Howard B. Bromberg...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-usa-defense-budget-idUSBREA1N1IO20140224
Budget cuts to slash U.S. Army to smallest since before World War Two

(Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Monday it would shrink the U.S. Army to pre-World War Two levels, eliminate the popular A-10 aircraft and reduce military benefits in order to meet 2015 spending caps, setting up an election-year fight with the Congress over national defense priorities.

...Hagel said the Pentagon plans to reduce the size of the Army to between 440,000 and 450,000 soldiers. The Army is currently about 520,000 soldiers and had been planning to draw down to about 490,000 in the coming year.

http://www.govexec.com/defense/2013/06/army-announces-force-reductions-future-civilian-cuts/65513/
Army Announces Force Reductions, Future Civilian Cuts

...The Army did not have specific figures on the number of civilian jobs that would be lost with these reductions, but Odierno said there are “foundational requirements” on necessary positions, such as those in family and soldier programs.

"There will be a commensurate civilian drawdown with the military, but we're working our way through it," Odierno said....

Now, who goes first? The team players? Or the troublemakers? The morale enhancers? Or the morale detractors? How people relate to their peers, how they motivate their subordinates (or not), is all part and parcel of how a service member does their job, and that kind of thing IS noticed.

I've had first hand experience of a couple of military drawdowns. I am not speaking academically, here.

When you're dealing with an all-volunteer, as opposed to a conscripted, force, it's harder to find people who are willing to just pack it in and leave, because unlike conscripts, they CHOSE to serve. Feelings get hurt; it gets very ugly, and sad. But believe me, though cuts are based on a variety of factors (paygrade, job specialty, e.g.) the people in those threatened sectors who don't make the grade, because they're unfit, they're overweight, they don't work and play well with others, they do their jobs poorly, and they've got a bit too much attitude (negative/rabble-rousing) will be shown the door first.

You can repeatedly call me "disgusting" all you'd like, go on, get it out of your system (!)--it's not going to change the situation. You can't hurt my feelings by getting all hot breathed and trying to characterize me, or trying to make this all about me--when it's not about me at all. It's about something that has happened repeatedly down the years in all branches of the military, and it's getting ready to happen yet again. Force shaping is not a lot of fun, but the services will tend to keep the people who support the entirely legal efforts of their civilian leadership, not the people that are calling them names and questioning their entirely legal actions.

If you think it's a good idea to stand up in your reserve unit and get "toasted" by your peers for trashing this guy, you knock yourself out. Make sure you let everyone know exactly what you think of SECDEF and POTUS's decision making process, too, while you're at it. Let everyone know that if he isn't punished the way you--as opposed to Chuck Hagel and Barack Obama--want it to go down, there will be "hell to pay!" Yeah, that's the ticket!


I saw the footage of Bergdahl being transferred. You don't have to have magical Fristian powers of diagnosis to see that the guy is, to use a non-medical term, seriously fucked up. He looked like he had an uncontrollable tic and sketchy control over his muscles. Those rapid eye blinks and fish out of water mouth movements make me wonder if he doesn't have some serious neurological issues. It may be some time before he's fit for duty--he just may end up being med boarded--and that would solve everyone's problem, now, wouldn't it?

I am knee deep in it right now. Heck, my retirement papers are pending right now (by my choice, not due to force shaping) so I am well aware of exactly what is playing out.

I have made the hard decisions to have my commander start the separation papers on too many soldiers recently. Some needed to go, some could have been redeemed but under the current environment won't get a chance. Not in one case did personal or political differences come into play.

Unlike how you and your peers must have done it previously, based on your claims, we are doing it with fairness and integrity. Political and personal opinions are not coming in to play, only objective performance measures. Sure, if you can't pass your PT test or make weight, you are in trouble these days and won't get second chances above the minimum required by regulation. If you are an NCO who isn't trying to keep going to schools and get promoted but just featherbedding and coasting in your current job, you will likely get shown the door by the board- especially if you are over 20. But not because you said something unpopular to the current senior leadership or if you have a bumper sticker that expresses an opinion your supervisor doesn't like.

And you don't get a negative evaluation for expressing criticism- even of decisions made at high levels. If you did most of the Army would have been disciplined cussing about Shinseki and the black beret, or the new tatoo regs everyone is complaining about now. In fact if somebody ever tried that, it wouldn't go well. Evaluations have to be based on black and white, demonstrable, documents factors. To put a negative block in an evaluation you have to show that the Soldier received previous counseling on their activities and was told what the expectations were and didn't correct the behavior- and a counseling to not talk about something like this wouldn't fly if someone was foolish enough to attempt it. Unless they could articulate it was being done in a way that demonstrably harmed the force and that is a high, very high, bar for use when regulating speech. So boards reviewing files for force shaping won't have any idea of a Soldiers opinion on the matter.

All these force shaping decisions are made two places- for junior enlisted by the commander and his/her unit leadership at the company level. They won't care about the criticism, and in fact likely will feel the same way. For NCO's and officers by boards, who won't have a clue what the individuals personal opinion of this situation is- they only see evaluations written by the individuals leaders and their other service record, not their Facebook posts. So your assertion that criticism of this will actually affect anyones retention is laughable, along with statements like "They also better not be repeating war stories from people who exaggerate, too" smacks of a desperate attempt to scare those in uniform into shutting up.

and don't realize that it's coming YOUR way, like it, or not.

Look, if you think that service personnel who trash their commander-in-chief's decision making process, or who question the SECDEF's orders, possess "fairness and integrity" I can't help you. I will say it's probably a good thing that you've put in your retirement papers--you might not be a good fit for a smaller force if you think that kind of thing is "OK."

Force shaping decisions are made by Congress, not at the unit level. The shit rolls downhill. When billets are cut, bodies follow. Congress makes these decisions based on testimony from the service chiefs/secretaries. I have written a lot of that testimony over the years. The individual services make decisions about what they want to cut, where they want to cut it, and then the word goes forth. Often, installation commanders are authorized to shape their base force to suit their priorities, but the parameters under which they are laboring are VERY limited. They are cutting the billets, no matter what, but they may elect to cut an extra one from the logistics end of things, and leave a spare on the operational side. But those numbers, like it or not, will add up at the end of the day. If a commander is told that he or she needs to cut twenty percent of the personnel at an installation, then one person in five IS gonna be gone because the billets will no longer be funded.

We're not talking about uniform and appearance standards, here--Obama isn't the one issuing tattoo orders (which, FWIW were implemented for one reason and one reason only--to get RID of people, to make it harder for people to stay in, to single people out as "inappropriate" and push them towards the exits). He is, though, the one who made the decision to get Bergdahl out of captivity. Mocking and derisive comments about the Commander in Chief or SECDEF are boneheaded at any time, but I can promise you that tolerance for that kind of thing will take a downhill slide. And anyone who puts up with that kind of stuff from peers or subordinates isn't demonstrating very good leadership at all.

I bit my tongue through years of GOP Commander in Chiefs; even though I didn't care for them, and often their decisions, I wasn't so stupid that I thought mouthing off about my opinions as to my boss's decisions was a good idea.

It will piss the right to no end, but this will quietly go away. He will be given his POW medal, with the benefits that come with it. He will be given his back pay. He will be counseled out and medically retired.

Why? Five years as a POW. Time served if you will.

Why a certain ret General is making the rounds screaming that he needs to have his court martial and all that. McCafrey knows what I write is the likely end after the proper investigation that is. And he will even get his welcome home parade back home, small town and all.

The sergeant might even write a book and do that circuit, and it might even be a good read. But with all the screaming, after a couple weeks of screaming...it will quietly go away.

They have ways of destroying people when the facts are not checked closely...

That's how republicans think.

Sounds like something out of Idiocracy.