US soldier Bowe Bergdahl freed by Taliban in Afghanistan

[Bwanatickey]

Watching his father talking live on the News about his Son's release with the President alongside him.

President Obama did deliver.

[Ulysses G.]

high level The five released from Guantanamo have been out of the picture for nearly a decade and although they will be bestowed a certain status by supporters of the Taliban, they are unlikely to assume the operational positions they once held.

It is reassuring to know that someone on on the Thai Visa forum has such deep insights into the inner workings of the Taliban. I'm sure that John McCain will drop his objections about releasing five dangerous, high level terrorists after reading this foundationless speculation.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[NeverSure]

Obama flat-out broke the law. How many complaints do we have on TVF about people in power not being accountable to the law? What is a corrupt country? If we don't have the rule of law, how are we any better than some corrupt 3rd world country?

Never in my life have I seen an official in the US break the law and not pay the penalty. It's a bedrock of security and freedom for the people.

This totally stinks up the place and I'm ashamed of it.

[Johpa]

It is reassuring to know that someone on on the Thai Visa forum has such deep insights into the inner workings of the Taliban. I'm sure that John McCain will drop his objections about releasing five dangerous, high level terrorists after reading this foundationless speculation.

If I had some sort of deep insight into the inner workings of the Taliban I would not need to speculate. But I daresay that I shall add the term "foundationless speculation" to my list of favorite oxymorons.

[Ulysses G.]

There is such thing as informed speculation, but that must be too much to ask.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[simple1]

high level The five released from Guantanamo have been out of the picture for nearly a decade and although they will be bestowed a certain status by supporters of the Taliban, they are unlikely to assume the operational positions they once held.

It is reassuring to know that someone on on the Thai Visa forum has such deep insights into the inner workings of the Taliban. I'm sure that John McCain will drop his objections about releasing five dangerous, high level terrorists after reading this foundationless speculation.

The Afgan Taliban are not listed by the US as a terrorist organisation whereas Haqqani network is listed.The US has over a number of years attempted to engage the Afghan Taliban in peace talks, as well as the Pakistani Taliban (who are listed by the US as a terrorist organisation) via the Pakistani governement. You could say tthe Pakistani Taliban are even more ruthless than their Afghan 'brothers'.

From media reports the US negoitated with the Haqqani network, is this correct or was it via the Taliban thereby avoiding accusations of directly negotiating with a listed terrorist organisation?

The Karzai government has requested the US to release those heading for interim custody in Qatar. I assume as a gesture to ease political negotiations for power sharing with the Taliban after the majority of US forces depart Afghanistan.

Edited June 2, 2014 by simple1

[Ulysses G.]

IMO, anyone who blinds little girls with acid to keep them from attending school is a terrorist. I don't care about what list they are on. They have carried out plenty of other atrocities over the years.

[Carmine6]

This was a very good bargain with little cost to the US. The Taliban are many things, including very badly behaved, misogynist, and deluded monotheists. But they are also Pathan nationalists who want to have a political voice over their domain that is currently being occupied by foreign forces. Any discussions about the future of Afghanistan that has the goal of reduced violence will require the inclusion of the Taliban. Negotiating this prisoner swap was a good deal for all sides.

...

"little cost" remains to be seen. They now have incentive to grab Americans, and I mean any Americans anywhere they can. The whole point of not negotiating with terrorists is once the precedent gets set, they then have inventive to keep doing the same.

[Morch]

The US government should NEVER negotiate with terrorists, particularly those that are inclined to kidnap our troops.

This administration is the only one in my lifetime that I can remember doing so. I feel empathy for the kidnap victim, if he was really a victim, but negotiating with the bad guys simply tells them you are weak and you cannot deal with Muslim terrorists from a position of weakness.

Let us hope and pray this doesn't open the door to more kidnappings.

But then, perhaps this is Obama's way to finally live up to his promise to close Gitmo. Just empty it in exchange for kidnapped US personnel..

The problem with "never"-policies is that we live in a dynamic world, and cannot foresee every possible future development.

Not advocating total pragmatism, but a certain leeway or maneuvering space are not necessarily evil.

The cons of cutting deals and negotiating with terrorists are known.

But if I was a captive, or if someone close to me was held captive - I'd probably throw misgivings out the window.

A rescue operation is not always possible, applying full military might not always effective.

What is, then, the effect on soldiers of government basically telling them they're own their own if caught?

Count my blessings I'm not in a similar position nor required to make a call of this.

[wandasloan]

This was a very good bargain with little cost to the US. {snip} {snip}

You have no idea of the cost to the US. I don't know either, but I can think of many very, very heavy costs in the near, middle and far future, all three. With a son in the US armed forces, I can't think of much else, actually.

Never in my life have I seen an official in the US break the law and not pay the penalty. It's a bedrock of security and freedom for the people.

Sure you have. Unfortunately.

This is a black, black event.

.

[Morch]

high level The five released from Guantanamo have been out of the picture for nearly a decade and although they will be bestowed a certain status by supporters of the Taliban, they are unlikely to assume the operational positions they once held.

It is reassuring to know that someone on on the Thai Visa forum has such deep insights into the inner workings of the Taliban. I'm sure that John McCain will drop his objections about releasing five dangerous, high level terrorists after reading this foundationless speculation.

I'll have to agree with Johpa on this.

The ones released been out of the loop for a long while, probably not familiar with some of the new talent running things.

They are exposed, they are older, and they are operationally compromised by virtue of spending all that time in custody.

Their release is mostly a PR and moral boosting victory, I do not think it represents a clear threat as such. Does increase

motivation for kidnapping, probably.

In terms of direct threat, younger, lower level and shorter term detainees are more dangerous. Certain individuals which are either highly regarded political/religious leaders or possess unique organization/technical skills may be an exception.

The cool-down period in Qatar, if observed, is a nice touch - taking the edge off the media coverage.

[wandasloan]

I'll have to agree with Johpa on this.

The ones released been out of the loop for a long while, probably not familiar with some of the new talent running things.

They are exposed, they are older, and they are operationally compromised by virtue of spending all that time in custody.

Their release is mostly a PR and moral boosting victory, I do not think it represents a clear threat as such. Does increase

motivation for kidnapping, probably.

In terms of direct threat, younger, lower level and shorter term detainees are more dangerous. Certain individuals which are either highly regarded political/religious leaders or possess unique organization/technical skills may be an exception.

The cool-down period in Qatar, if observed, is a nice touch - taking the edge off the media coverage.

Yes, the important thing in combatting enemy and assuring the lives of US troops and citizens is media coverage, and the US president is vitally, continuously aware of that. In fact, he seems unaware of little else. That's because of the oath of office of the USA, which centres on the prime duty of every sworn US official, taking the edge off media coverage.

Edit: This just in from CNN. Much more where this comes from:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/01/us/bergdahl-deserter-or-hero/index.html

The sense of pride expressed by officials of the Obama administration at the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is not shared by many of those who served with him — veterans and soldiers who call him a deserter whose “selfish act” ended up costing the lives of better men.

“I was pissed off then and I am even more so now with everything going on,” said former Sergeant Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl’s platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009. “Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him.”

Vierkant said Bergdahl needs to not only acknowledge his actions publicly but face a military trial for desertion under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. . . .

Many of Bergdahl’s fellow troops — from the seven or so who knew him best in his squad, to the larger group that comprised the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division — told CNN that they signed nondisclosure agreements agreeing to never share any information about Bergdahl’s disappearance and the efforts to recapture him. Some were willing to dismiss that document in hopes that the truth would come out about a soldier who they now fear is being hailed as a hero, while the men who lost their lives looking for him are ignored.

Many are flocking to social media, such as the Facebook page “Bowe Bergdahl is NOT a hero,” where they share stories detailing their resentment. . . . Emails reported by the late Michael Hastings in Rolling Stone in 2012 reveal what Bergdahl’s fellow infantrymen learned within days of his disappearance: he told people that he no longer supported the U.S. effort in Afghanistan.

Imagine that. The very highest levels of the US government forcing men and women in uniform to sign a promise not to talk about this man, and that is a very heavy threat. Thank goodness the US has a president who takes that oath seriously to "protect and defend taking the edge off media coverage".

.

Edited June 2, 2014 by wandasloan

[stander]

This is a calculated move by Obama to cover his ass on the VA mess. Bergdahl is a deserter and should be on trial

[Ulysses G.]

The ones released been out of the loop for a long while

I doubt if it is that difficult to retrain someone on how to send out terrorists with bombs strapped to their bodies to slaughter civilians. It is not like computer programing.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Many of Bergdahls fellow troops from the seven or so who knew him best in his squad, to the larger group that comprised the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division told CNN that they signed nondisclosure agreements agreeing to never share any information about Bergdahls disappearance and the efforts to recapture him.

Seems to be a pattern with scandals concerning this administration.

[Morch]

I'll have to agree with Johpa on this.

The ones released been out of the loop for a long while, probably not familiar with some of the new talent running things.

They are exposed, they are older, and they are operationally compromised by virtue of spending all that time in custody.

Their release is mostly a PR and moral boosting victory, I do not think it represents a clear threat as such. Does increase

motivation for kidnapping, probably.

In terms of direct threat, younger, lower level and shorter term detainees are more dangerous. Certain individuals which are either highly regarded political/religious leaders or possess unique organization/technical skills may be an exception.

The cool-down period in Qatar, if observed, is a nice touch - taking the edge off the media coverage.

Yes, the important thing in combatting enemy and assuring the lives of US troops and citizens is media coverage, and the US president is vitally, continuously aware of that. In fact, he seems unaware of little else. That's because of the oath of office of the USA, which centres on the prime duty of every sworn US official, taking the edge off media coverage.

Edit: This just in from CNN. Much more where this comes from:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/01/us/bergdahl-deserter-or-hero/index.html

The sense of pride expressed by officials of the Obama administration at the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is not shared by many of those who served with him — veterans and soldiers who call him a deserter whose “selfish act” ended up costing the lives of better men.

“I was pissed off then and I am even more so now with everything going on,” said former Sergeant Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl’s platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009. “Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him.”

Vierkant said Bergdahl needs to not only acknowledge his actions publicly but face a military trial for desertion under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. . . .

Many of Bergdahl’s fellow troops — from the seven or so who knew him best in his squad, to the larger group that comprised the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division — told CNN that they signed nondisclosure agreements agreeing to never share any information about Bergdahl’s disappearance and the efforts to recapture him. Some were willing to dismiss that document in hopes that the truth would come out about a soldier who they now fear is being hailed as a hero, while the men who lost their lives looking for him are ignored.

Many are flocking to social media, such as the Facebook page “Bowe Bergdahl is NOT a hero,” where they share stories detailing their resentment. . . . Emails reported by the late Michael Hastings in Rolling Stone in 2012 reveal what Bergdahl’s fellow infantrymen learned within days of his disappearance: he told people that he no longer supported the U.S. effort in Afghanistan.

Imagine that. The very highest levels of the US government forcing men and women in uniform to sign a promise not to talk about this man, and that is a very heavy threat. Thank goodness the US has a president who takes that oath seriously to "protect and defend taking the edge off media coverage".

.

I was actually aiming more at media coverage on the other side. Cutting down on the unavoidable media fanfare, or at least

distancing it a little from the trade itself will provide some mitigation.

Agreed that stifling voices speaking out against the trade or about the circumstances which led to this case is wrong, not to mention silly.

The deal itself is not good, but as far as deals of this sort go, it could be worse.

[ClutchClark]

It was probably not a very good idea trading him for terrorists, but I am still glad that the poor fellow is finally free and back with his family.

Have you researched how many of those Gitmo detainees were not terrorists but were captured and sold to US forces by competing warlords simply for the reward money?

The US is not going to release known terrorists.

[Morch]

The ones released been out of the loop for a long while

I doubt if it is that difficult to retrain someone on how to send out terrorists with bombs strapped to their bodies to slaughter civilians. It is not like computer programing.

These people been in custody for a long time. I seriously doubt any organization will let them waltz back to operations as

if nothing happened. They are compromised. There's new blood and they are old-timers, internal politics exist within every

human group.

I am not saying that they are harmless, or that it is a good thing they were released. Just that there's no need to hype the

level of danger they represent. And that's without taking into account the not-so-surreal possibility that one or more have

been turned, that they can be monitored or that their release can be used for psychological counter ops.

The trade wasn't the best option, true. That said, maybe not a disaster as such.

[Pattszero]

I wasn't aware he was a deserter - no doubt you guys were.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10868673/Bowe-Bergdahl-a-darker-story-behind-the-release-of-Americas-last-prisoner-of-war.html#disqus_thread

They should have left him to rot.

[wandasloan]

I was actually aiming more at media coverage on the other side. Cutting down on the unavoidable media fanfare, or at least

distancing it a little from the trade itself will provide some mitigation.

Agreed that stifling voices speaking out against the trade or about the circumstances which led to this case is wrong, not to mention silly.

The deal itself is not good, but as far as deals of this sort go, it could be worse.

Fair enough. I don't mean to be disagreeable in disagreeing here, don't take this the wrong way. As a general maxim, it is true that "no matter how bad it is now, it could be worse". Just look at Thailand two weeks ago and now for proof of that. But in this specific case, I can't think of anything that could be worse than the secret Obama-Taliban deal to return a deserter to the US side. I'd be riveted by an example of what you think could be worse.

During the Vietnam war and during the Korean one, there were several Bergdahls who were eventually abandoned. (One of the Korean cases, Charles Jennings, finally left on his own to return to the US. He had supposedly been "married" to a kidnapped Thai, officially still missing in that horrid country. The US gave up precisely nothing in his case.)

In lieu of any perfect resolution to such cases, I find surrendering to terrorists' demands to be the very worst I can imagine. The knock-on dangers rather frighten me, in fact. In a way, it's like philandering, on a national scale. For a moment, it feels good, in return for which you have endangered the entire structure - not just of marriage but your entire life, future and the lives and futures of everyone you touch.

.

[ClutchClark]

The word terrorist gets thrown around too easily.

Are you really serious? They have burned children alive, thrown acid in young girls faces for attending school, beaten and killed numerous civilians and many other hateful crimes. Just what do you call a terrorist?

Who has done this? The people who have held Bergdahl the past 5 years?

[wandasloan]

Have you researched how many of those Gitmo detainees were not terrorists but were captured and sold to US forces by competing warlords simply for the reward money?

The US is not going to release known terrorists.

Oh my. Someone has not researched anything at all. You are badly, sadly misinformed and spreading nonsense here.

Not only is the US almost certain going to release known terrorists, it has released many dozens of them. According to the Defence Intelligence Agency of the United States in 2008, "Of the 531 Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) detainees transferred from Department of Defense [sic] custody, 18 are confirmed and 43 are suspected of subsequently reengaging in terrorist activities..."

http://archive.mrc.org/pdf/2010/SCAN0778_000.pdf

Repeat. That was as of 2008. It was in the newspapers and everything.

[Pattszero]

The word terrorist gets thrown around too easily.

Are you really serious? They have burned children alive, thrown acid in young girls faces for attending school, beaten and killed numerous civilians and many other hateful crimes. Just what do you call a terrorist?

Who has done this? The people who have held Bergdahl the past 5 years?

Would you like to give a guarantee to their good character? Or is it the case that not only do you not know them, you don't even know their names, but it makes for a good ad hominem fight on the internet.

You should consider getting a life.

[ClutchClark]

Obama flat-out broke the law. How many complaints do we have on TVF about people in power not being accountable to the law? What is a corrupt country? If we don't have the rule of law, how are we any better than some corrupt 3rd world country?

Never in my life have I seen an official in the US break the law and not pay the penalty. It's a bedrock of security and freedom for the people.

This totally stinks up the place and I'm ashamed of it.

Reagan broke the law but had Ollie North take the fall.

I don't like Obama but he does some things right and this is one of them.

Maybe he did it to get the heat off the VA or for some other self motivated reason as all politicians seem to do but the fact is an american soldier has been returned home safely.

Ends justify the means.

[Chicog]

This was a very good bargain with little cost to the US. The Taliban are many things, including very badly behaved, misogynist, and deluded monotheists. But they are also Pathan nationalists who want to have a political voice over their domain that is currently being occupied by foreign forces. Any discussions about the future of Afghanistan that has the goal of reduced violence will require the inclusion of the Taliban. Negotiating this prisoner swap was a good deal for all sides.

...

"little cost" remains to be seen. They now have incentive to grab Americans, and I mean any Americans anywhere they can. The whole point of not negotiating with terrorists is once the precedent gets set, they then have inventive to keep doing the same.

Like they never had the incentive to do that before.

[Johpa]

There is such thing as informed speculation, but that must be too much to ask.

Well this uninformed speculator was watching an even more uninformed speculator today, that radical leftist Fareed Zakaria, who noted that the two candidates running for election in Afghanistan, Abduallah Abullah and Ashraf Ghani, are both friendly towards US interests and yet both are in favor of bringing the Taliban into the body politic. The US is slowly withdrawing from its faulty decision to place regular troops into Afghanistan and this prisoner swap has many longer term undertones.

But listen folks, the danger of capture of US soldiers by enemy combatants to be held for political gain is no different today than decades ago. There is no substantial increase in risk to Americans as the risk is always present in a war zone. When the war in Vietnam was winding down we negotiated with the North Vietnamese over POWs. Now that the war in Afghanistan is winding down we negotiated with the Taliban. Nothing has changed and nothing will change as the US will never learn from the mistakes from the past as long as a new generation of war profiteers smells an opportunity. If you don't believe me then read the clarion work of another uniformed speculator and total military wimp, Smedley Butler's War is a Racket. But pardon me for taking you away from your highly informed and terribly neutral sources on FOX News.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Johpa

[ClutchClark]

This was a very good bargain with little cost to the US. {snip} {snip}

You have no idea of the cost to the US. I don't know either, but I can think of many very, very heavy costs in the near, middle and far future, all three. With a son in the US armed forces, I can't think of much else actually.

Understandable concern. Now if it was your son that had been a POW for 5 years I wonder how a trade like this might be viewed by you? I don't care what laws are broken to get our soldiers home.

Some here are suggesting that this trade now places our soldiers at risk...they have always been at risk. It comes with the uniform and being seen as an invader on foreign soil.

Edited June 2, 2014 by ClutchClark

[Chicog]

I think it needs some perspective here. Obama didn't go into Afghanistan, into a war America could never win. He's trying to extricate the US from it. The only people who should be bleating about this are Unocal and the Bush family.

Whilst I feel sorry for the people of Afghanistan for the fact that they will soon once more be under Taliban rule, it was the US that created the bloody Taliban in the first place.

There are at least 2,121 sets of parents who've seen their loved ones coming home in bodybags. If sending five retarded scumbags back to a s***hole gets one US soldier back alive, I think that's a fair trade.

However, long term whether it was done in good faith to promote "negotiations" is irrelevant. These people do not negotiate.

As soon as the US has pulled out, the Taliban will be back in charge, and Karzai and his mates will be off in Dubai living off the billions they've stolen from the US taxpayer.

Sometimes people just focus on the wrong things.

[ClutchClark]

I wasn't aware he was a deserter - no doubt you guys were.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10868673/Bowe-Bergdahl-a-darker-story-behind-the-release-of-Americas-last-prisoner-of-war.html#disqus_thread

They should have left him to rot.

First of all, its amazing how many red-blooded flag waving Americans throw out our founding principles when it suits them. Sgt Bergdahl has not been found guilty of any crime. He has not received a court-martial. As it stands right now, he is a US military soldier and entitled to the same protections as any servicemember.

He is innocent until proven guilty...or do you not remember that one?

Edited June 2, 2014 by ClutchClark

[Basil B]

It was probably not a very good idea trading him for terrorists, but I am still glad that the poor fellow is finally free and back with his family.

I agree 100%

but if it had been any other country America would have been the first to condemn (with the exception of Israel).