You're out of line. Bergdahl was classified as a POW. That is what he was. If he is charged, tried at a court-martial and found guilty of desertion, then you can call him a deserter. Until then, you're out of line and wrong. We don't need to hear your name-calling.

Just one vet's opinion. Take it for what you imagine it's worth. My suggestion is that you use the Self-delete feature of DU for your post.

He was treated like a POW. If you bothered to read the article you linked to, you'd know that they're not calling captured people POWs in that conflict. It doesn't matter. You're picking nits.

He has not been convicted of anything, though. That's certain. If he is, then we can call him something else. Until then, he's a guy who has returned by our government from imprisonment.

No trial, no conviction, no guilty verdict. He's still Sgt. Bergdahl.

All POW types get them over time? If he'd been held long enough, would he be popped up from non-comm to officer level?

They're not using the term POW there. And yes, they get promoted on schedule, but there's no automatic promotion from enlisted status to officer status.

I didn't realize promotions for all non-comm types were simply a matter of scheduled timing.

Captured enlisted personnel are routinely promoted at their eligibility interval. Their families are part of the reason. Think about it.

Thanks, I never knew that.

I bet you knew that. It's in the link you provided.

The Pentagon defines “missing/captured” as a member of the armed forces who has been “seized as the result of action of an unfriendly military or paramilitary force in a foreign country.” Some would say that amounts to being a POW. For purposes of reporting and recording the status of service members, the Pentagon some years ago stopped using the term “prisoner of war,” although it awards a POW Medal for eligible service members and it has a Defense POW/Missing Persons Office.

It's just a feeling though.

(strike that) area of knowledge.

He continues to run around noting that Bergdahl, who was listed as Missing/Captured (the only current designation used for captured personnel), was "not listed as POW."

There's no explanation for such continued dishonesty other than that it is deliberate dishonesty meant to ensnare people who missed the last time he was corrected.

I applaud those who continue to correct former9thward's dishonesty by omission, but I don't think you're going to catch up to somebody who is clearly intent on such dishonest behavior.

It's not my job to do more than that. If it were my job, I'd get paid for it.

I am simply showing news sources which state that he never had that designation even though posters continue to insist that he did. That is the dishonesty that YOU are defending. There is no explanation for that continued dishonesty.

Right?

Or do you just say 'he wasn't classified a POW' and walk away?
Seems like you're forgetting to inform the people you tell that to, that the classification itself no longer exists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025048544#post50

Could it be, because you wish to foment an interpretation of that fact that would be detrimental to his character?

He has done that all himself.

There's just no explaining that sort of conduct. It's unfortunate. It also telegraphs a glaring gap in his knowledge of the topic--a gap he's apparently proud about, since he keeps trumpeting his error so proudly.

That kind of obsessive stubborn repetition of a falsehood is suggestive of deep, but entirely impotent, anger over this issue. It's funny how the stay-at-home armchair generals are so eager to "Leave the bastard to rot!" while the active duty special forces personnel are the ones who say "Everyone out--NO exceptions!"

It doesn't matter, really, though--he's not "the Decider" even if he wants to be. I think Chuck Hagel--who knows a thing or two about POWs from the last war he served in as a uniformed soldier--will do just fine navigating this minefield of frantic and hot-breathed public opinion.

As you explain well below, people can use POW as a term of art (a military designation) or in a colloquial sense (their own understanding of captured military personnel). If former9thward's true intent was to merely disabuse people who were using the term incorrectly, it would be very easy to say "He's not designated as a POW because nobody is: the current designation for somebody who is captured is missing/captured, not POW."

The essence of the dishonesty is that he doesn't say that. He just says "He's not designated as a POW," the implication being that he is designated as something other than missing/captured, which is patently false, as former9thward well knows. These kinds of dodges and infantile posting behaviors are, of course, ridiculous, but it's useful to see this poster expose himself so pathetically over this issue.

In any case, I'm done conversing with somebody who is clearly practicing in bad faith here. These kinds of juvenile antics are just boring.

There's a reason for what he's doing, I suspect. He's on a roll, and it fits him to a T....



He should head on over to Discussionist; they have a high tolerance for that sort of bovine poop over that way.

Speaking as someone who spent a lovely year in Afghanistan and a lovely year and a half in Iraq I really have a clue. Speaking as someone who authored a book that the Army War College in Carlisle, PA has dozens of copies of on a relevant topic in their library (the unclassified holdings can be seen online) I do have a clue.

Lots of folks went down that road. Unless you wrote the thing on "Military terminology pursuant to individuals captured or missing in times of war" you might not be up to snuff on this particular topic.

You'd think you would have taken the time to learn that we're not using that POW designation any more--particularly before deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan. It's important for leaders in the field to be able to communicate appropriately to their seniors back in the rarified air of DC.

Missing/captured means what it means.

Terminology matters.

And I did not write a "thesis". After my experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq the army contracted with me to write a book on Islamic organizations so they could teach their officers the principles of these organizations. I am not the one using POW. Posters on DU insist on using that designation to convey that someone was captured in battle against the Taliban when the exact opposite is true.

explaining what he was?

You do realize--since you're smart and wrote a book and all--that doing that kind of thing makes you sound like you're deliberately being disruptive, in order to paint the MISSING/CAPTURED individual who was just returned to US control in a negative light, or to suggest, falsely to an unsuspecting audience not knowing the terminology, that the Pentagon somehow thought less of this young man, and for that reason they CHOSE to not afford him this designation that doesn't exist?

I see that a number of people pointed this out to you, yet you never went back and corrected your remarks, when--thanks to the wonders of editing here at DU3--we're all able to do. Nothing prevented you from doing that, instead, you continued on, repeating the nefarious inference.

It left me with a very poor impression of you. I was rather surprised, frankly.

Since you're chock-a-block full of military experience, you should know, better than the average civilian, that the military follows very specific procedures, particularly when they're getting ready to transfer an individual with an open investigation on them to the civilian rolls. They will follow all these protocols when it comes to Bergdahl, and they'll come to a conclusion as to how his situation will be adjudicated. I think a lot of people may be terribly disappointed if they don't get to see him marched in chains to a CM, but they'll just have to live with that. As I've said, despite the desperate urgings of the flip-flopping, bullshitting far right, Chuck Hagel will handle this appropriately and in a very low-key fashion.

Quotes a "writing" a book that has no relevance to the subject on hand... "army contracted with me to write a book on Islamic organizations so they could teach their officers the principles of these organizations." to inflate his "credentials"

even though they know better. Of course you are not writing your tst, tst, posts to them. I wonder why? No, I don't.

As far as the rest of your post yes I think the army will cover up the mess. That is a long-standing military tradition.

We live in a society where fewer than one percent even served, and despite the fact that we have a huge bulk of Vietnam veterans in our midst, even they haven't kept up with the changes in terminology after they left the service.

When I joined the service, a captured prisoner WAS called a "POW" and if you didn't know where the poor so-and-so was, he was MIA. When I left the service, the designations had changed and DUSTWUN and Missing/Captured had entered the lexicon.

The fact that you insist that 99 percent of the country, civilians who never served, and a huge percentage of vets who got out of the military, some of them over a half century ago, have kept up with "the latest" in military terminology is LAME. And don't even try to suggest that you were saying it to correct people or offer a teachable moment. I--and others--saw the context of your posts. You weren't trying to help anyone; you were casting an aspersion by inference, and anyone reading what you wrote could see that. It's why you're getting push-back from me and others.

When you do that kind of stuff, it reveals a lot, and what it reveals doesn't reflect well on you.

And I don't think the Army will "cover up" anything. They'll do an investigation and they'll come to a conclusion that is CONTEXTUALLY appropriate. That investigation will include everything, including the circumstances of his recruitment, his conduct in basic, and his adaptability in advanced training as well as when he integrated into his unit (which, we're learning, had a morale and good order and discipline problem). But I'm not surprised that you "interpreted" my comments that way--the glass is half empty for you.

He's trying to get a rise out of people.

All I am trying to do is shine a light on what he's doing. That kind of stuff IS disruptive and rude.

You can play games with the initials, but the office that manages POW/MIA issues had his files.

And since we don't use that term anymore, what does it matter?

— The Pentagon defines “missing/captured” as a member of the armed forces who has been “seized as the result of action of an unfriendly military or paramilitary force in a foreign country.” Some would say that amounts to being a POW. For purposes of reporting and recording the status of service members, the Pentagon some years ago stopped using the term “prisoner of war,” although it awards a POW Medal for eligible service members and it has a Defense POW/Missing Persons Office.


So, whatever.

None of which applies to the Sgt. So I do object when someone uses that terminology because when they do they are doing it for a purpose. That are trying to pretend he was captured fighting the enemy when clearly he was not.

We have a "POW" medal, and "POW" flag, and "POW/MIA" offices at the individual branches, but we don't have "POW's" anymore.

We have "Missing/Captured" now. The old terminology is no longer part of military categorization of servicemembers. Anyone who still uses it in that way is taking the term from popular culture, from the WW2 or Vietnam experiences, but not from anything the military is doing today.

This is appropriate, because we now frequently fight people who are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War. The Taliban, for example, are NOT signatories.

POW, even when it was used, didn't mean the person was captured "fighting the enemy." All it meant was that the person was captured BY an enemy, generally one who was signatory to Geneva.

of violating the UCMJ, Art 85. That happened fast. Got the cite?

I find it offensive.

Desertion is literally a deadly serious charge. Not to be tossed off lightly.

I almost said elected, then remembered the circumstances of GWB's "taking" office.

Fairly obvious from his records his superiors knew the skinny. They got him out of town or were told to do so because he blew off his flight physical and got away with it.

I don't know-just an attorney trying to understand the elements of the crime that Republicans have already convicted him of.

Belaboring the obvious, had this happened on Dimson's watch, Repugs and their media fellators wouldn't have needed their daily Viagra dosage. They would have been demanding a MoH for both of them

days although that can be fluid and other circumstances can attend.

If I were helping to navigate him through the minefield to civilian status, I would go all the way back to his enlistment documents and his MEPS physical.

I wouldn't be surprised if we learn this kid needed medication of the ADD/ADHD varieties or maybe something a bit more serious. I don't think he was ever a good fit for the services, and in a "desperate for bodies" push for recruits, they focused on the fact that he was fit and could pass an ASVAB, and didn't pay any attention to emotional quirks or poor socialization skills.

At any rate, I think they should push that he was a faulty enlistment--that he never should have been permitted to join because he was medically unqualified. That's probably the easist track to pursue. The next tier is that he was a "low quality recruit"--for reasons not his fault, but reasons nonetheless, he couldn't adjust to service, he was a drag on his unit, he was unable to correct his behavior, it was disruptive to good order and discipline and he needed to be washed out. The next option is the old "balance of the mind was disturbed." He developed medical issues in terms of his mental health and had diminished capacity to realize what he was doing.

There are a lot of ways to skin this cat, metaphorically speaking, of course. Who knows, he may be so messed up that they can't bring him back to full duty status, in which case there could be a medical discharge in his future...?

Well done!

I guess you were there in Afghanistan and know exactly what happened?? Keep your right wing, Glenn Beck propaganda to your damn self.

What makes you think there is now? Ever heard of black opps? If that was the case the truth may never come out. You jump to conclusions as soon as some asshole Republican yells Deserter or Bengazi or what ever. Pathetic

You don't ever leave an American soldier behind period end of discussion. That is what the poster was saying. If he deserted than the USMCJ will deal with that. Lt. Colonel Hal Moore went back to the Iron Triangle 3 months after the battle to find the remains of American Soldiers that had been ambushed. They were not even part of his command but he believed that he should be the first boot down and the last boot off. he believed that no one should ever be left behind. Enjoy your stay.

with one of those yellow, I support the troops magnet on your car, huh?

You don't get to tell that SEAL what he's allowed to say.

You don't have the "authori-teh." So perhaps you'd just best quit while you're behind, and not second guess someone who actually did the job.

How nice that you've decided to reactivate your account to give us your pearls of wisdom....

Otherwise, I'll assume you're just here to make trouble.

we do not leave our own behind.

If we determine guilt of an offense, AWOL, desertion, wearing white shoes after Labor Day... we punish him accordingly. We do not leave our own in enemy hands for punishment.

So, I can't agree that we always punish accordingly.

(Whether you think a troop is a saint or a sinner, leaving anyone behind is really lousy military policy. So is judging a member of the military based on what some FOX stooge says.)

we may consider 5 years captivity is already enough punishment.

Knowing troops, I can speculate scenarios where he did not desert but was doing something he should not have been doing. Several involve alcohol or women...

It's just so sad that this kid and his family are going to get skewered so people can get at Obama.

And as far as leaving people behind, see...

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/17/world/us-knew-in-1953-north-koreans-held-american-pow-s.html

about someone who was not a SEAL.

BTW, I think you misread the OP.

He said that his status is irrelevant and that it is not his place to judge. He said that it is dutiful to retrieve any soldier from the field of battle.

I misread the thread. Apologies.

"You want I should kick your (fill in appropriate situational language) ass" is a term of endearment on DU. I believe it gained popularity in the Lounge.

I didn't get it initially, either. Now I regard it as a declaration of deep fondness whenever I see it appear!

Rule # 3 is "'Motherfucker' is a term of endearment".

People like that one.

beard is so much like a terrorist unlike the Duck D dudes. Hypocrites the lot of them.

have no opinion of the "worthiness" of Bowie Bergdahl before, or since, his capture.

However. I am amazed at the tremendous amount of controversy, misinformation, hate and fear being expressed over the release of Bowe Bergdahl is disheartening.

Are people really saying that a soldier of the United States that is being held as a POW does not deserve to be returned to this country unless he has passed scrutiny as to the quality of his character, the heroism of his service in combat, the level of exhibited patriotism of his relatives back home and the level of his disillusionment with the ever disappointing quality of government?

Are the American Politicians and people saying these are litmus tests to be applied to all soldiers captured by the enemy before this country will take action to recoup them from the prisoner of war camps?

Was this the position of the American Government and it’s citizens when the Vietnam POWs were brought home in 1973? I remember some discussion as to how many men had been broken and had supplied the enemy with some information.
The only POW I remember being tried was Bobby Garwood and even he was scheduled to be returned with the other prisoners of war and was eventually returned in 1979. There was no discussion of leaving him in enemy hands even though the military wished to try him for desertion and collaboration and did so.

I would not have served during the Vietnam era if my government had stated it would abandon all soldiers that did not meet whatever standard of patriotism that was in vogue that day.

How afraid, vengeful and small we have become as a people.

WTF IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?

Nope, can't do it...Bush and Cheney get a free pass in all this. Gotta look forward and all that garbage.

I'm not sure what is going on with some DUers - excusing NSA overreach, thinking it would be A-OK to leave a soldier in Afghanistan, fine with charging 12 year old girls as adults......what the hell is going on?

They are no doubt scrubbing their web brains, rewriting history is hard work donchaknow!.

I noticed this happening in the past year.

Not really.

Last edited Thu Jun 5, 2014, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)

very well i've got carpel tunnel in my right hand thx for keeping thread kicked.

Mary

Three of the team are killed in the hills of Afganistan while trying to get to a pick-up point. What happened to their bodies? Were they ever recovered?

And if they are captured, they are more valuable to the US than a Sargent for two reasons. One, the US absolutely needs them. Two, you don't want a Seal potentially training a Taliban.

The part that makes my head want to explode is John McCain of all people questioning the release of Bergdahl. John Freakin' McCain!! I used to have a fair amount of respect for the man, even though I disagreed with much of his politics. Then he ran for President and selected Palin as his running mate, and a lot of my respect went away. But when he 'questioned' the release of Bergdahl, any lingering respect I had for him went up in a little puff of derision as I put him firmly in the 'he's completely lost it' column.