US soldier Bowe Bergdahl freed by Taliban in Afghanistan

[ClutchClark]

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.

Oh my oh my. The expression "terrorist" is quite loosely thrown around.

The document you provide states they are involved in terrorist activities after being released but provides zero evidence they were engaged in terrorist activities prior to capture.

I can tell you that if a foreign government had locked me up and subjected me to torture for 10 years you can bet your a$$ I would spend the remainder of my life on payback. Do a bit more reading and you will find many of those Gitmo detainees or enemy combatants or whatever PC phrase we are using nowadays were never proven to have engaged in terrorist activities even under torture.

The US has been releasing Gitmo detainees for years. It is a black eye on America that those captured were not treated by the Geneva Conventions.

Edited June 2, 2014 by ClutchClark

[ClutchClark]

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.

What are you freaking out about now? I simply asked for clarity. I do not know this group who held the soldier captive for 5 years. I do not know why they are considered terrorists rather than soldiers? Or do we now consider any enemy soldier to be a terrorist?

I have a good life. I went through our educational system back when critical thinking skills were taught. Must have been before your time?

[Morch]

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.

.

I am comparing the current deal to others. Specifically in this topic one of my posts made mention of a similar deal between Israel and Hamas, where a soldier was traded for over 1000 prisoners/terrorists. The circumstances of the soldier's falling captive, while not as severe as Bergdahl's (allegedly, there are few versions doing the runs), was nothing to be proud of.

If the worst case version of Bergdahl's story is indeed true, then yes - this deal is obviously wrong.

[simple1]

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.

The US forces were orginally welcomed by many Afghans as liberators from the Taliban tiranny, as were the Taliban when they put an end to the civil war. We all know how the Taliban evolved into the oppressor of the Afghan people, especially the minority ethnic groups.

Unfortunately when the US diverted resources to focus on Iraq, the US welcome in Afganistan fairly quickly went backwards. Rumsfeld, amongst others, made it clear they were not into nation building, erradication of opium production and so on. It is a shame that the opportunity for many Afghans to improve their lives was lost based upon short term policy views.

I have watched a number of documentaries and read books written by US forces personnel and others, nearly all regret the opportunity to transform the lives of those they were endeavouring to assist.

Are there any members on this forum who were on active service in Afghanistan, what are your thoughts?

[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.

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?

Sorry - it may have escaped you that he was a serving soldier in a front line position, who was seen abandoning his post. A la - desertion.

The title should read - "US Deserter Freed By The Taliban In Exchange For Five Terrorists."

I hope a court martial awaits him. He put at risk the lives of many other young men that went out to look for him.

[ClutchClark]

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?

Sorry - it may have escaped you that he was a serving soldier in a front line position, who was seen abandoning his post. A la - desertion.

The title should read - "US Deserter Freed By The Taliban In Exchange For Five Terrorists."

I hope a court martial awaits him. He put at risk the lives of many other young men that went out to look for him.

You have not provided anything but hearsay.

Let me know when the facts are discovered in a court of law, or in this case, a court martial as per the UCMJ.

Thats the way our American justice system works, although one unfortunate result of our electronic world is trial by the press and different social media outlets.

Even if Bergdahl is found guilty of Unauthorized Absence, he still has the right to serve his sentence in a US Federal prison and not as a POW under inhumane conditions.

But then maybe that s just some more of my old fashioned and outdated sense of values.

Edited June 2, 2014 by ClutchClark

[simple1]

If all these accusations against the guy are true, why was he twice promoted whilst in captivity?

[Chicog]

Rumsfeld, amongst others, made it clear they were not into nation building, erradication of opium production and so on.

So what was the $116.5 Billion for then?

In a recent quarterly report, the US special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction said that, when security for aid workers is figured in, the total amount of nonmilitary funds Washington has appropriated since 2002 “is approximately $100 billion”—more than the US has ever spent to rebuild a country. That estimate came out in July. Since then, Congress has appropriated another $16.5 billion for “reconstruction.” And all of that has not bought the United States or the Afghans a single sustainable institution or program.

[ClutchClark]

If all these accusations against the guy are true, why was he twice promoted whilst in captivity?

Since he had not faced court martial and had not been found guilty of any crime, Sgt Bergdahl is eligible to the very same rights and benefits as any other service member in good standing.

This would include advancements in rank.

[ClutchClark]

Rumsfeld, amongst others, made it clear they were not into nation building, erradication of opium production and so on.

So what was the $116.5 Billion for then?

In a recent quarterly report, the US special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction said that, when security for aid workers is figured in, the total amount of nonmilitary funds Washington has appropriated since 2002 is approximately $100 billionmore than the US has ever spent to rebuild a country. That estimate came out in July. Since then, Congress has appropriated another $16.5 billion for reconstruction. And all of that has not bought the United States or the Afghans a single sustainable institution or program.

And yet Republicans support this war with the same blind faith democrats support Obamacare.

[simple1]

Rumsfeld, amongst others, made it clear they were not into nation building, erradication of opium production and so on.

So what was the $116.5 Billion for then?

In a recent quarterly report, the US special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction said that, when security for aid workers is figured in, the total amount of nonmilitary funds Washington has appropriated since 2002 “is approximately $100 billion”—more than the US has ever spent to rebuild a country. That estimate came out in July. Since then, Congress has appropriated another $16.5 billion for “reconstruction.” And all of that has not bought the United States or the Afghans a single sustainable institution or program.

From quote you provided it appears that the $116.5 billion has acheived nearly zero. I guess this excludes the rebuilding of the Afghan army and security forces. However I was referring to Rumsfeld & co, have read of the material and reference doco at the URL below that unveils some of the policy decisions that were not in the public domain. e.g.

"Materials posted today also include memos from officials lamenting the American strategy of destroying al-Qaeda and the Taliban without substantially investing in Afghan infrastructure and economic well-being. In 2006, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald R. Neumann asserted that recommendations to "minimize economic assistance and leave out infrastructure plays into the Taliban strategy, not to ours."

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB358a/

[coma]

He should be put on trial for desertion and aiding the enemy.

[Chicog]

From quote you provided it appears that the $116.5 billion has acheived nearly zero. I guess this excludes the rebuilding of the Afghan army and security forces. However I was referring to Rumsfeld & co, have read of the material and reference doco at the URL below that unveils some of the policy decisions that were not in the public domain. e.g.

"Materials posted today also include memos from officials lamenting the American strategy of destroying al-Qaeda and the Taliban without substantially investing in Afghan infrastructure and economic well-being. In 2006, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald R. Neumann asserted that recommendations to "minimize economic assistance and leave out infrastructure plays into the Taliban strategy, not to ours."

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB358a/

It's achieved plenty: It's lined the pockets of heaven knows how many Americans who've taken it for "contracting services", and a large chunk of it went through the Karzai clan into Dubai real estate and banks, which was frankly a lifesaver for Sh. Moh'd.

Your taxpayer dollars at work.

Added: Read it and weep.

Rampant government corruption in Afghanistan – and the apparent powerlessness of the US do to anything about it – is laid bare by several classified diplomatic cables implicating members of the country's elite.

In one astonishing incident in October 2009 the then vice-president, Ahmad Zia Massoud, was stopped and questioned in Dubai when he flew into the emirate with $52m in cash, according to one diplomatic report. Massoud, the younger brother of the legendary anti-Soviet resistance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, was detained by officials from the US and the United Arab Emirates trying to stop money laundering, it says.

However, the vice-president was allowed to go on his way without explaining where the money came from.

The cable, sent by the ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, detailed the colossal scale of capital flight from Afghanistan – often with the cash simply carried out on flights from Kabul to the UAE.

"Vast amounts of cash come and go from the country on a weekly, monthly and annual basis. Before the 20 August [presidential] election $600m in banking system withdrawals were reported; however in recent months some $200m."

Couriers are said to usually carry the money on Pamir Airlines, which is jointly owned by Kabul Bank and influential Afghans such as Mahmood Karzai, one of the president's brothers, and Mohammad Fahim, a Tajik warlord who was Hamid Karzai's vice-presidential running mate in the August 2009 election.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/02/wikileaks-elite-afghans-millions-cash

Edited June 2, 2014 by Chicog

[ClutchClark]

He should be put on trial for desertion and aiding the enemy.

Finally someone understands how our Justice system works.

One question the military would have to ask is what can actually be gained by a Court Martial?

Both of the above charges are very difficult to prove.

Someone has indicated witnesses state he was drunk. Where did the alcohol come from on a forward operating base? Its not allowed. Does the military really want to open this can of worms? To expose the practices of its commanders to the kind of scrutiny that a high profile case like this would create?

Its in the interest of all parties to let this soldier return home and close this chapter.

Besides at this point its become just one more example of the partisanship that now permeates America and threatens to destroy it.

[ClutchClark]

It's achieved plenty: It's lined the pockets of heaven knows how many Americans who've taken it for "contracting services", and a large chunk of it went through the Karzai clan into Dubai real estate and banks, which was frankly a lifesaver for Sh. Moh'd.

Your taxpayer dollars at work.

Added: Read it and weep.

Rampant government corruption in Afghanistan and the apparent powerlessness of the US do to anything about it is laid bare by several classified diplomatic cables implicating members of the country's elite.

In one astonishing incident in October 2009 the then vice-president, Ahmad Zia Massoud, was stopped and questioned in Dubai when he flew into the emirate with $52m in cash, according to one diplomatic report. Massoud, the younger brother of the legendary anti-Soviet resistance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, was detained by officials from the US and the United Arab Emirates trying to stop money laundering, it says.

However, the vice-president was allowed to go on his way without explaining where the money came from.

The cable, sent by the ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, detailed the colossal scale of capital flight from Afghanistan often with the cash simply carried out on flights from Kabul to the UAE.

"Vast amounts of cash come and go from the country on a weekly, monthly and annual basis. Before the 20 August [presidential] election $600m in banking system withdrawals were reported; however in recent months some $200m."

Couriers are said to usually carry the money on Pamir Airlines, which is jointly owned by Kabul Bank and influential Afghans such as Mahmood Karzai, one of the president's brothers, and Mohammad Fahim, a Tajik warlord who was Hamid Karzai's vice-presidential running mate in the August 2009 election.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/02/wikileaks-elite-afghans-millions-cash

Would you please quit posting this stuff?

Its really destroying my good mood.

Its just amazing the amount of waste and fraud.

[Chicog]

Would you please quit posting this stuff?

Its really destroying my good mood.

Its just amazing the amount of waste and fraud.

You don't think that war was actually started to achieve anything other than a good old fashioned cash grab do you?

[folium]

Rumsfeld, amongst others, made it clear they were not into nation building, erradication of opium production and so on.

So what was the $116.5 Billion for then?

In a recent quarterly report, the US special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction said that, when security for aid workers is figured in, the total amount of nonmilitary funds Washington has appropriated since 2002 “is approximately $100 billion”—more than the US has ever spent to rebuild a country. That estimate came out in July. Since then, Congress has appropriated another $16.5 billion for “reconstruction.” And all of that has not bought the United States or the Afghans a single sustainable institution or program.

From quote you provided it appears that the $116.5 billion has acheived nearly zero. I guess this excludes the rebuilding of the Afghan army and security forces. However I was referring to Rumsfeld & co, have read of the material and reference doco at the URL below that unveils some of the policy decisions that were not in the public domain. e.g.

"Materials posted today also include memos from officials lamenting the American strategy of destroying al-Qaeda and the Taliban without substantially investing in Afghan infrastructure and economic well-being. In 2006, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald R. Neumann asserted that recommendations to "minimize economic assistance and leave out infrastructure plays into the Taliban strategy, not to ours."

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB358a/

Afghan sadly is a classic example of the conundrum: "no security without development; no development without security".

In this sense "security" is not just physical security from harm but also political, economic and social security (ie the rule of law, security of tenure, education, healthcare, good governance etc)

The initial military action in Afghan in 2001was a largely SF-led operation and really it was not till 2008 that sufficient forces were deployed to have a material impact on the ground. Up until then operations were largely of the "mowing the lawn" variety as there were insufficient troops to hold and secure ground gained. Heroic actions and tactical victories could not compensate for the strategic vacuum.

Had there been a full scale deployment of both military and development agencies from the outset (and had there not been the distraction of the Iraqi wild goose chase), the outcome could have been a little different. The PRTs have had an impact in the social and economic areas but have been too small scale, too open to graft and have suffered from a severe security deficiency. Basically the plug was pulled on PRTs in 2012 and the hard fought gains are likely to be fleeting as ISAF withdraws. A sorry tale indeed.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390443749204578048430936135770

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/26/afghan-children-harm-malnutrition-growth-development

[Ulysses G.]

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.

Smedley Butler lived from 1881 to 1940. He was "informed" indeed, if you are referring to World War ONE. Fox News is a little more reliable when it comes to the war against the Taliban.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[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.

Like they never had the incentive to do that before.

Really? Before today, all any potential kidnapper had was some unknown reward. Zero expectation that they could get anything for their hostage. They had to waste resources on the hostage for an indefinite period of time, have some guys guarding them, keep moving them around, and worry that someone will blab and the location of the hostage and they'll wake up one late one night with special forces busting in the door. Of course they'll take any hostages they can get a hold of, but actively going out and trying to take one is a different ball game.

After today, they now have an end game. They can now expect that the US is willing to negotiate and spring their brother or friend, or whoever they might want out. Or if not that, then something else they want done. Or more significantly, that someone else who wants their relative or friend out may now be willing to pay for that hostage so they can do a deal. It's an entirely different situation. High risk with no idea of what they could get before, to high risk, but now maybe they can get someone out who they want out.

Right now, the two glaring things the terrorists are looking at are, this swap was just done, and the suspects in the Benghazi attack are freely wandering around. I actually expect that soon before the election, that second part will get taken care of, but if I were in the Middle East for work or something, I'd be out of there ASAP.

[Chicog]

Really? Before today, all any potential kidnapper had was some unknown reward. Zero expectation that they could get anything for their hostage. They had to waste resources on the hostage for an indefinite period of time, have some guys guarding them, keep moving them around, and worry that someone will blab and the location of the hostage and they'll wake up one late one night with special forces busting in the door. Of course they'll take any hostages they can get a hold of, but actively going out and trying to take one is a different ball game.

After today, they now have an end game. They can now expect that the US is willing to negotiate and spring their brother or friend, or whoever they might want out. Or if not that, then something else they want done. Or more significantly, that someone else who wants their relative or friend out may now be willing to pay for that hostage so they can do a deal. It's an entirely different situation. High risk with no idea of what they could get before, to high risk, but now maybe they can get someone out who they want out.

Right now, the two glaring things the terrorists are looking at are, this swap was just done, and the suspects in the Benghazi attack are freely wandering around. I actually expect that soon before the election, that second part will get taken care of, but if I were in the Middle East for work or something, I'd be out of there ASAP.

I'm in the Middle East for work and I have no intention of even working up a sweat.

This is going to have absolutely no bearing on security whatsoever.

About the only difference is that the talitubbies might be interested in keeping a captured westerner alive rather than beheading him for a youtube video.

[Chicog]

the suspects in the Benghazi attack are freely wandering around

Wow, you managed to slip a "Benghazi" in. Well done.

[Ulysses G.]

I'm in the Middle East for work and I have no intention of even working up a sweat.

Thanks for posting more trivia. You are not an American soldier, so your personal situation has nothing - at all - to do with this.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

I'm in the Middle East for work and I have no intention of even working up a sweat.

Thanks for posting more trivia. You are not an American soldier, so your personal situation has nothing - at all - to do with this.

I've got slightly more to do with it than you pal.

[Ulysses G.]

Sure you do.

[Johpa]

He should be put on trial for desertion and aiding the enemy.

Perhaps. I admit I am not up to date on military law and do not know what the punishment would be for desertion. (There are no accusations that he aided the enemy.) But I doubt it could be much harsher than spending five years as a prisoner of the Pathan Taliban rebels. If the evidence points to desertion then at this point a quiet court martial leading to a dishonorable discharge is the most that is needed. Reading between the lines, yes speculating once again, I doubt he will ever be found mentally competent enough in the future to stand at any trial. At the possible expense of further espousing my grossly uninformed views, I recall, if I remember correctly as I read this many years ago, reading Tom Carew's book Jihad!: The Secret War in Afghanistan where he describes encountering captured Soviet Spetnatz soldiers who had lost their mental facilities after being guests of the Pathans.

[Bwanatickey]

Only ONE U.S.A prisoner taken by peasant rag tag army trying to defend their way of life and villages.

Only one POW in a ten year war.

Is that worth celebrating.

He was exchanged for Taliban leaders who once where fighting Russians.

[Loptr]

Only ONE U.S.A prisoner taken by peasant rag tag army trying to defend their way of life and villages.

Only one POW in a ten year war.

Is that worth celebrating.

He was exchanged for Taliban leaders who once where fighting Russians.

And this dip-shit abandoned his post and wandered off base because he was disillusioned with the 'war on terror'. He is not being welcomed back with open arms as the administration had hoped. Yet another foreign policy screwup by the gang that can't shoot straight.

[Bwanatickey]

Many of us are " disillusioned with the war on Terror."

[beautifulthailand99]

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.

In the first world war they shot mentally damaged people suffering from shell shock who were suffering acute post traumatic stress disorder. Probably brave people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and had their minds shattered as a result and went wandering away from their posts. Since he didn't just go to his CO and say he wanted out which would have been probably a couple of years most in some army prison - or if he could get the shrinks on his side something much lesser but walked out into hostile territory with an enemy known to torture and behead Amercans I think it would be easy to surmise that he wasn't of sound mind - cut the guy some slack - if you weren't their and didn't experience what he experienced then who are we to judge..

[folium]

Only ONE U.S.A prisoner taken by peasant rag tag army trying to defend their way of life and villages.

Only one POW in a ten year war.

Is that worth celebrating.

He was exchanged for Taliban leaders who once where fighting Russians.

And this dip-shit abandoned his post and wandered off base because he was disillusioned with the 'war on terror'. He is not being welcomed back with open arms as the administration had hoped. Yet another foreign policy screwup by the gang that can't shoot straight.

And how did you cope in a war-fighting scenario? And that does not include time spent playing CoD Modern Warfare etc

The lack of a welcome back has more to do with partisan politics than a genuine interest in this damaged individual. Probably makes you proud inside....