Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 11:31 AM Jun 2014

David Brooks (somewhat surprisingly) gets it exactly right on Bergdahl

Can't say I'm a fan of David Brooks -- much of the time I find him clueless. But in this column in today's New York Times concerning the deal to secure the release of Sgt. Bergdahl, Brooks gets it exactly right. And even the rather mild criticism he makes of the Obama Administration is, I think, a fair one. In any case, kudos to Brooks for a much-needed injection of sanity into the discussion.

[font size=6]President Obama Was Right[/font]

JUNE 5, 2014

< . . . . >

These commitments (of soldiers not to leave any American behind), so crucial, are based on deep fraternal sentiments that have to be nurtured with action. They are based on the notion that we are members of one national community. We will not abandon each other; we will protect one another; heroic measures will be taken to leave no one behind. Even if it is just a lifeless body that we are retrieving, it is important to repatriate all Americans.

The president and vice president, the only government officials elected directly by the entire nation, have a special responsibility to nurture this national solidarity. So, of course, President Obama had to take all measures necessary to secure the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Of course, he had to do all he could do to not forsake an American citizen.

It doesn’t matter if Bergdahl had deserted his post or not. It doesn’t matter if he is a confused young man who said insulting and shameful things about his country and his Army. The debt we owe to fellow Americans is not based on individual merit. It is based on citizenship, and loyalty to the national community we all share.

< . . . . >

It is not dispositive either that the deal to release Bergdahl may put others at risk. The five prisoners released from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in a swap for Bergdahl seem like terrible men who could do harm. But their release may have been imminent anyway. And the loss of national fraternity that would result if we start abandoning Americans in the field would be a greater and more long lasting harm.

< . . . . >
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
David Brooks (somewhat surprisingly) gets it exactly right on Bergdahl (Original Post) markpkessinger Jun 2014 OP
Blind squirrels do sometimes find nuts. mn9driver Jun 2014 #1
All soldiers should know that they or their bodies will be returned home The Second Stone Jun 2014 #2
"As much as I HATE to admit it, Obama was... um... (sigh)... Obama was rrrrrrr.... wyldwolf Jun 2014 #3

mn9driver

(4,423 posts)
1. Blind squirrels do sometimes find nuts.
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 12:58 PM
Jun 2014

But Brooks is incapable of writing an entire column without taking a swipe or three at Obama. I think it's written into his contract. He hates the President just has much as any tea bagger.

 

The Second Stone

(2,900 posts)
2. All soldiers should know that they or their bodies will be returned home
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 01:15 PM
Jun 2014

to rest and that Sean Hannity has no say in the matter.

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
3. "As much as I HATE to admit it, Obama was... um... (sigh)... Obama was rrrrrrr....
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 01:27 PM
Jun 2014

... what I'm trying to say is Obama was... rrrr..."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»David Brooks (somewhat su...