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

flpoljunkie

(26,184 posts)
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 08:54 AM Jun 2014

Slate's Fred Kaplan: The Bergdahl Deal Could Be the Start of Something Big

What People Don’t Understand About the Bergdahl Deal
America negotiates with terrorists. These were not terrorists. And this could be the start of something big.

By Fred Kaplan

The news channels are blaring two misconceptions about the recovery of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held captive by the Taliban for five years until this past weekend, when he was traded for five Guantánamo Bay detainees.

First, contrary to claims by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and others, the Obama administration did not negotiate with “terrorists” to get Bergdahl back.

But, second, contrary to messages conveyed by President Obama and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, this is not an occasion for unblemished celebration.

The first point is politically important. Many columnists and congressmen make a big point that America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. Well, sometimes America does, but the key thing here is that the Taliban delegates, with whom U.S. officials have been negotiating in Qatar over the fate of Sgt. Bergdahl, are not terrorists. They represent a political faction and a military force in Afghanistan; they are combatants in a war that the United States is fighting. In other words, Bergdahl was not a “hostage” (another erroneous term uttered by Rogers). He was a prisoner of war, and what happened on May 31 was an exchange of POWs.

The Bergdahl deal may serve as a prelude to a wider set of talks with the Taliban.

more…

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/06/bowe_bergdahl_and_negotiating_with_the_taliban_why_the_deal_to_free_this.html
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

PatrynXX

(5,668 posts)
2. already know this
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:20 AM
Jun 2014

too bad the media doesn't. bout as stupid as what Bush did with the Iraqi Police in 2003. Fired them all. Well we lost the war from then on. So the Iraqi Police had no other job so they went to whoever payed them.

Taliban has some rogue fighters called Al Qaeda , those are terrorists and yes this was a prisoner exchange. can't remember how John McCain got out although I've been told he was leaking intel and thats why they had to get him out..

frylock

(34,825 posts)
3. this was the same media that was labeling captured service personnel as being kidnapped..
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:22 AM
Jun 2014

kidnapped, as if they were snatched off the playground see-saw.

former9thward

(31,970 posts)
5. Nice subtle try at smearing POWs.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:39 AM
Jun 2014

McCain was released at the end of U.S. participation in the Vietnam War -- just like every other POW. No one had to "get him out". The War ended. Read some history sometime.

Hekate

(90,633 posts)
4. Bottom line: Obama is going to empty Guantanamo. The GOP may not let him "close" it, but I think....
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:33 AM
Jun 2014

.... Obama is going to empty it. Just watch.

Rachel's piece about how the final bits went down with Qatar during the graduation ceremonies at West Point was priceless, afaic.

former9thward

(31,970 posts)
6. Bergdahl was never a POW.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:42 AM
Jun 2014

The Army never listed him as a POW. In 2010 they investigated and concluded he had deserted.

SunSeeker

(51,550 posts)
7. Got a link for that? I think what they determined was that he left on his own.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:31 PM
Jun 2014

The term deserted has very explicit legal meaning, and I imagine requires a trial before it can be asserted as fact.

What is very clear is that the Army was on notice that this kid was losing it well before he disappeared. And yet they did nothing.

His fellow soldiers noted he would stare at the mountains and talk about going to China; he sent his personal effects home:

“He had sent all his belongings home — his computer, personal items,” said Mr. Full, now 25. He said Sergeant Bergdahl used to gaze at the mountains around them and say he wondered if he could get to China from there. Other platoon members said that Sergeant Bergdahl wrote Jason Bourne-type novels in which he inserted himself as the lead character.


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

Indeed, there were tons of hints he would do this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/13-things-you-need-to-know-about-bowe-bergdahl-20140602

But most important, the morning he left, he asked his team leader an incredibly telling question:

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.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607page=4#ixzz33bXXWsEZ

The talking heads make much of the fact that Bergdahl left his rifle/equipment behind when he left the base, as if that proves he intended to join the enemy. But as the above exchange demonstrates, he was just complying with what his team leader said about not taking his sensitive equipment--rifle and night-vision goggles--if he were to leave the base, so as not to create "problems" for his team.

former9thward

(31,970 posts)
9. Oh please, it was not the Army's job to do hold hands.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 05:05 PM
Jun 2014

The Army can't have psychologists and social workers assigned to everyone. A lot of young people in the military "act weird". When I was in the Air Force they were all over. So what. For the most part they made it through.

This is the link to him never being a POW. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/06/03/bergdahl-never-listed-by-pentagon-as-prisoner-of-war/

He may not have been listed as a legal deserter but he certainly was AWOL.

SunSeeker

(51,550 posts)
12. Oh please, the guy asked his team leader if he can leave with his equipment.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 05:32 PM
Jun 2014

It doesn't take a shrink to figure that one out. It is not a "hand holding" situation but a security issue. Even if you don't give a shit if this guy wanders off, how about the guys who have to search for him?

And of course he was not officially a prisoner of war. We did not declare war in Afghanistan. I did not challenge that. I challenged your loaded use of the term deserter. You seem to acknowledge he was never found to be a deserter. Are you now saying he was declared AWOL?


former9thward

(31,970 posts)
14. I am not in the Army so of course I don't know what he was officially classified.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 05:36 PM
Jun 2014

He was not a deserter because they could not do legal proceedings against him when he was not there. This will proceed soon enough although the Army may sweep it under the rug because they don't want bad PR.

flpoljunkie

(26,184 posts)
8. Bergdahl was designated by the Army as missing/captured, not deserted.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:01 PM
Jun 2014

It’s true that Bergdahl was never officially categorized as a “prisoner of war,” since the Pentagon apparently stopped using that designation years ago. But he was defined as “missing/captured,” which is essentially the same thing. And while the Taliban fighters who were released were likewise not formally designated prisoners of war, either, because of the odd, formally undeclared status of the war with Afghanistan, that’s what they were. As President Obama said Tuesday morning, “This is what happens at the end of wars.” Imagine the outrage if the president brought the troops home from Afghanistan but left Bergdahl behind.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/the_right’s_unhinged_bergdahl_hypocrisy_the_ultimate_way_to_savage_obama/

flpoljunkie

(26,184 posts)
11. That depends on your definition of the 'end of the war.'
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 05:16 PM
Jun 2014

All troops will be out at the end of 2016. Troops will be reduced to 9800 at the end of 2014. That said, many would agree the surge in Afghanistan was a mistake. Count me among them.

abakan

(1,819 posts)
13. Yes Yes Yes..
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 05:33 PM
Jun 2014

Finally somebody who makes sense..I only hope the guys with the torches and pitchforks pay attention..

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Slate's Fred Kaplan: The...