… For the veterans of the units that lost these men, Bergdahl’s capture and the subsequent hunt for him will forever tie to their memories, and to a time in their lives that will define them as people. He has finally returned. Those men will never have the opportunity.
Bergdahl was not the first American soldier in modern history to walk away blindly. As I write this in Seoul, I’m about 40 miles from where an American sergeant defected to North Korea in 1965. Charles Robert Jenkins later admitted that he was terrified of being sent to Vietnam, so he got drunk and wandered off on a patrol. He was finally released in 2004, after almost 40 hellish years of brutal internment. The Army court-martialed him, sentencing him to 30 days’ confinement and a dishonorable discharge. He now lives peacefully with his wife in Japan — they met in captivity in North Korea, where they were both forced to teach foreign languages to DPRK agents. His desertion barely warranted a comment, but he was not hailed as a hero. He was met with sympathy and humanity, and he was allowed to live his life, but he had to answer for what he did. I believe that Bergdahl also deserves sympathy, but he has much to answer for, some of which is far more damning than simply having walked off. Many have suffered because of his actions: his fellow soldiers, their families, his family, the Afghan military, the unaffiliated Afghan civilians in Paktika, and none of this suffering was inevitable. None of it had to happen. Therefore, while I’m pleased that he’s safe, I believe there is an explanation due. Reprimanding him might yield horrible press for the Army, making our longest war even less popular than it is today. Retrieving him at least reminds soldiers that we will never abandon them to their fates, right or wrong. …
I forgave Bergdahl because it was the only way to move on. I wouldn’t wish his fate on anyone. I hope that, in time, my comrades can make peace with him, too. …
From Jonathan S. Tobin, in Commentary
The debate over the Bergdahl swap raises comparisons to Israeli actions, such as its prisoner swap to gain the freedom of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. Some congressional Republicans, such as House Intelligence Committee chair Mike Rogers, are criticizing the swap for the same reasons many Israelis and Americans denounced the deal in which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traded over 1,000 Palestinian terrorists to Hamas, including many murderers, for Shalit. Rogers believes that negotiating with the Taliban not only strengthens these Islamist foes of the United States but also sets a high price on hostages that will make it difficult to free others who are held by terrorists and encourage more attacks on Americans.
These are all fair points, but I have to confess that my first reaction to the headline about the five-for-one agreement mediated by officials in Qatar was puzzlement as to how the Obama administration had managed to make such a deal … But the more I’ve read about the five prisoners who have been freed in exchange for Bergdahl, the less impressed I am with the negotiating acumen of the administration. Far from cutting a better deal than the Israelis tend to be able to do, this swap may actually be far worse in terms of the potential danger of the particular individuals involved and the administration’s future attitude toward the conflict. … The Bergdahl deal appears to be not just a lopsided swap but also an indication that the U.S. may be conceding defeat to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
From Jesse Berney, in the liberal site Blue Nation Review
People don’t come much more partisan than I do. My first job in politics was at the Democratic National Committee, and I’m fully aware that I can’t help but view events through a partisan lens. So I understand the instincts Republicans have to attack President Obama first and look for justification second. I know what it’s like to see a president as inherently flawed and to assume what he does must be somehow wrong.
But for the life of me, I cannot imagine the mentality behind the current Republican attacks on President Obama for arranging for the release of an American prisoner of war. Yes, there are serious questions about how Bowe Bergdahl went missing. Yes, it is fair to raise concerns about the deal Obama struck that resulted in the release of five Taliban prisoners. (Although it’s important to note that the prisoners may have been released anyway, with the United States getting nothing in return.)
But there is no question — none — that any president of the United States should work to free American prisoners of war. That Republicans and the right-wing media have used this as an excuse to attack Obama (and Bergdahl and his family) ferociously, and even call for his impeachment, showing just how deranged the modern right has become. …
Is it any wonder that we’re facing one of the most deadlocked, partisan Congresses in history? When you see Republicans attacking on Obama for freeing a prisoner of war, it doesn’t much guesswork to see who’s to blame.
From Douglas Barclay, at the conservative website Rare
On (a recent) edition of “The Daily Show,” host Jon Stewart tore into President Barack Obama like never before.
Stewart criticized the Obama administration for so easily mucking up what should have been the positive story of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl returning from captivity.
“It is so rare that America get’s a story like this, magnificent and wonderful!” Stewart joked.
Stewart zeroed in on all of the cliches that the Bergdahl story has drawn out of politicians and pundits, including…
“We do not negotiate with terrorists.”
“We leave nobody behind.”
Stewart was mostly annoyed by the spectacle announcement that Obama had in the Rose Garden with Bergdahl’s parents.
“It’s not like the administration is gonna make a big Rose Garden announcement, bring out the guy’s parents, with one of them ‘I killed Bin Laden moments’….really…they did that?” Stewart joked.
After playing a clip of Obama with Bergdahl’s parents, Stewart cut to Brian Kilmeade on Fox, questioning whether Robert Bergdahl looked like a Muslim because he had a beard. That’s when Stewart got in his most biting barb of the night.
“My guess is, if you gave Bowe Bergdahl a bandanna and a duck, you’d like him just … fine,” Stewart joked, while comparing Bergdahl to the Duck Dynasty clan.
From Brian Beutler, in The New Republic
The emerging conservative position on Bergdahl’s release — and the many ways they’ve articulated it — has fueled the vitriol of abandonment supporters, but amounts to something different and incomplete. Not opposition to his return, per se, but a belief that the trade-offs the United States accepted to secure his release are unsupportable — a determination they’ve based in large part on an unforgiving examination of his conduct as a soldier.
That’s the charitable interpretation.
But if the deal was bad, and was bad largely on account of Bergdahl’s unworthiness of sacrifice, then this is an endorsement of the idea that he should be in Taliban custody today, perhaps traded down the line for something less valuable than five Guantanamo detainees who probably would’ve had to be released anyhow. If conservatives genuinely don’t believe he should’ve been left behind, and find the suggestion offensive, then they must name a price they’d deem acceptable and that his captors would have deemed sufficient. …
From the New York Daily News editorial board
President Obama betrayed the highest obligation of his office — safeguarding national security — in trading five hard-core Taliban for the American serviceman who appears to have deserted in Afghanistan.
The five sworn enemies of the United States are now in the Gulf state of Qatar, where they are free to come and go as they like, beyond the watch of American agents. In just one year, they will be free to return to Afghanistan to fight there and stage terror attacks far beyond that country’s borders.
These facts were known to Obama when he made the deal, and yet he went ahead in irresponsible disregard for lives he has endangered. As the facts have emerged — and more surely will — it has become ever clearer that he lost his presidential compass in the Taliban swap.
In retrospect, his Rose Garden announcement that he was bringing home an American POW appears to have been a cynical act of theater. …
The White House suggested there was no time to inform Congress because Bergdahl’s health was failing. But U.S. doctors in Germany are treating him only for diet issues, not even malnutrition.
Finally, Obama provided insight into the actual reason for the deal by placing it in the context of his drive to pull out of Afghanistan.
“This is what happens at the end of wars,” Obama said. “That was true for George Washington; that was true for Abraham Lincoln; that was true for FDR; that’s been true of every combat situation — that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back.”
In other words, he wants out so badly that he accepted the Taliban’s terms, regardless of the threat to American security.
He is surrendering without honor.
From Bret Stephens, at the Wall Street Journal
Whether Sgt. Bergdahl was taken by the enemy, deserted the Army or defected to the Taliban remains to be established. But just to be clear where the former operator is coming from, Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice states: “Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.”
But wait: We are not “in time of war.” We are in Time of Obama.
In Time of Obama, dereliction of duty is heroism, releasing mass murderers with American blood on their hands is a good way to start a peace process, negotiating with terrorists is not negotiating with terrorists, and exchanging senior Taliban commanders for a lone American soldier is not an incentive to take other Americans hostage but rather proof that America brings its people home. …
At a minimum, Americans should demand precise answers from the administration about the circumstances of Sgt. Bergdahl’s capture before he’s given a hero’s welcome. At a minimum, Americans also deserve to know the precise costs we have incurred before congratulating the administration for obtaining his release.
But in Time of Obama, that’s not what Americans are going to get.
From Joan Walsh, at Salon
Of course Republicans are going to compare the prisoner swap that won the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to Benghazi. They both start with B. It leads to their favorite words that start with I: investigation, and possibly impeachment.
…
The anti-Bergdahl hysteria plays into six years of scurrilous insinuation that Obama is a secret Muslim who either supports or sympathizes with our enemies. Even “moderate” Mitt Romney, you’ll recall, claimed the president’s “first response” to the 2012 Benghazi attack “was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” This is just the latest chapter. …
T
Congressional investigations are one thing; shrill partisan hackery is another. “There’s little that’s actually new here,” says Mitchell Reiss, a State Department official under President George W. Bush who also served as national security adviser to Mitt Romney. Reiss is right about the Bergdahl deal, but he’s wrong about the larger political atmosphere. What’s “new” here is a president who’s had his competence, his patriotism, even his very eligibility for office questioned from the outset.
From our readers
The primary question is this. When he decided to leave his post, which way did he turn? Did he attempt to walk away from the conflict as a matter of conscience or did he turn his back on his comrades and actively seek out those who wished his fellow soldiers harm? Nothing else really matters to those who have served in the military no matter how the non-veteran politicians attempt to spin this matter. — WILLIAM A.TAYLOR, Lt Col, USAF (Retired)
Let the military do their job. That is, do a thorough and impartial investigation. If the results of the investigation justify an Article 31 hearing (think grand jury) and the results of that is to pursue a court marshal, so be it. — PAULINE MICCICHE
About the Author