• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Bowe Bergdahl freed by Taliban after five years of captivity

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
This is true. And I guess you could say they were "dismissed."

I think you could also say they were evaluated and deemed as less important than the alternative outcomes.

Clinton was the chief voice (in the minority surely) of dissent; but my understanding is her concerns were almost entirely political.

You will see this next year when Bergdahl is mentioned, as well as the deteriorating relations with Israel; especially in light of the recent Israeli elections, the Iran deal, and the apparent beginnings of a Sunni-Shia regional war that could quickly escalate to something larger.

But the release of Bergdahl was not a political or partisan decision. It was supported by the generals, by the CIA and largely by the State department.

That doesn't make it right though, and whether or not I agree, I understand the sentiment from many folks in this thread that it just wasn't worth it.

We leave no man behind. Even if he is a deserter. It is up to us to serve justice to the man, not the enemy.

As for the cost: I'd wager that within a few years all of the guys we traded in exchange for SGT Jackass will be dead courtesy of Special Forces and/or hellfire missiles. So, in the end, the cost may be negligible.
 
This is true. And I guess you could say they were "dismissed.....But the release of Bergdahl was not a political or partisan decision. It was supported by the generals, by the CIA and largely by the State department.

It's difficult to determine how much subordinates actually "support" a decision when they know the Commander in Chief is in favor of it. I know that at least some senior general officers expressed disagreement to Hagel because of the circumstances of his capture, but you're right in that those concerns were not considered significant by the Administration. They apparently believed that "leave no man behind" was a mantra/slogan/principle that trumped other considerations.

I don't think the Administration expected members of his unit to go public. And I don't think they understood that not everyone either inside or outside the military interpreted "leave no man behind" the same way.
 
Lookit gouri and qtip catchin feels for each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ_
We leave no man behind. Even if he is a deserter. It is up to us to serve justice to the man, not the enemy.

As for the cost: I'd wager that within a few years all of the guys we traded in exchange for SGT Jackass will be dead courtesy of Special Forces and/or hellfire missiles. So, in the end, the cost may be negligible.

Was literally going to make this exact post the other day but decided against it.
 
Is it true that after his disappearance, attacks happened that seemed to indicate that he helped plan them?

If so, is it possible that they got him back before he continued to leak more intelligence?

I don't think NMLB should apply to a straight traitor. Answer to q1 will make the decision pretty cut and dry.
 
I think I also read that right after he left, Al Qaeda had become efficient in their attacks against the base, where to hit them, and that they had to suspend operations in the area for a while because of it.

So basically, this piece of human trash betrayed his own country. We deserve to dole out the punishment.
 
Is it true that after his disappearance, attacks happened that seemed to indicate that he helped plan them?

If so, is it possible that they got him back before he continued to leak more intelligence?

I don't think NMLB should apply to a straight traitor. Answer to q1 will make the decision pretty cut and dry.

Nobody I talked to involved with the unit at levels above "Joe" seemed to think such claims were credible.

Also, information obtained under duress does not meet the requirement necessary to demonstrate the intent to commit treason.

Desertion is not treason.
 
Its not really an issue. If we leave him, he gets beheaded and becomes a national hero. What then, since his unit knew he was a deserter.. We bring him home, convict him of his crime and as Stannis points out, drop some hellfire on the five pricks when they are back to hanging with thier jihadist buddies.

The problem with Gitmo is that there is no resolution. These guys arent going to stop because we imprisoned them. Whatever intel they had is obsolete. So plant a bug up thier ass and turn em loose. If they behave and remain peaceful, then they are ok to be in the world. If we track them back to the battlefield or a bomb making facility, we gather new and relevant intel. Its a win win..
 
Its not really an issue. If we leave him, he gets beheaded and becomes a national hero.

We're still there, and haven't "left". Exchanges during a war are much different from exchanges after it is over.

What then, since his unit knew he was a deserter.. We bring him home, convict him of his crime and as Stannis points out, drop some hellfire on the five pricks when they are back to hanging with thier jihadist buddies.

If it was that easy to get timely and accurate targeting information on specific individuals, at a location where the employment of a Hellfire is appropriate, then this war would have been over by 2002.

The problem with Gitmo is that there is no resolution. These guys arent going to stop because we imprisoned them.

To the contrary, keeping them imprisoned is the only way -- other than execution -- to stop them

So plant a bug up thier ass and turn em loose. If they behave and remain peaceful, then they are ok to be in the world. If we track them back to the battlefield or a bomb making facility, we gather new and relevant intel. Its a win win..

I defer to your greater experience on that one....
 
Its not really an issue. If we leave him, he gets beheaded and becomes a national hero. What then, since his unit knew he was a deserter.. We bring him home, convict him of his crime and as Stannis points out, drop some hellfire on the five pricks when they are back to hanging with thier jihadist buddies.

The problem with Gitmo is that there is no resolution. These guys arent going to stop because we imprisoned them. Whatever intel they had is obsolete. So plant a bug up thier ass and turn em loose. If they behave and remain peaceful, then they are ok to be in the world. If we track them back to the battlefield or a bomb making facility, we gather new and relevant intel. Its a win win..

As odd as it might be, I actually agree with all of this.
 
We're still there, and haven't "left". Exchanges during a war are much different from exchanges after it is over.

I meant leave him in the custody of the taliban....not leave him sitting in his fox hole while we retreat. I should have thought that was obvious in this context..



If it was that easy to get timely and accurate targeting information on specific individuals, at a location where the employment of a Hellfire is appropriate, then this war would have been over by 2002.

You keep on believing it isnt that easy... Contrary to popular belief, the US does not always kill everybody just because they can. They often leave enemy assets alive, especially if those assets are providing useful intel..



To the contrary, keeping them imprisoned is the only way -- other than execution -- to stop them.
We cant just execute them. So after 10 years, they have no valuable intel, if they are even sane..Sending them back into their own country is far more likely to lead to termination than keeping them in a cage...



I defer to your greater experience on that one....

If you were under the complete control of the CIA for 10 years, they would have so many ways planted on you to track your movements, you would never get clean. I would bet you a dollar that right this minute you are locationally identifiable by the CIA if they were in the mood.
 
I would bet you a dollar that right this minute you are locationally identifiable by the CIA if they were in the mood.

He's "locationally identifiable" by me if I were in the mood.

Just to be fair, any junior-level hacker could identify him and his location with ease.

The CIA... they wouldn't need to expend any energy whatsoever.
 
He's "locationally identifiable" by me if I were in the mood.

Just to be fair, any junior-level hacker could identify him and his location with ease.

The CIA... they wouldn't need to expend any energy whatsoever.

Oddly enough, I agree with everything in this post..
 
If you were under the complete control of the CIA for 10 years, they would have so many ways planted on you to track your movements, you would never get clean.

Other than watching movies, what's your evidence of that? The CIA can't do magic.

Aside from a whole bunch of other holes in that theory, if a device is sending out a signal capable of being tracked, it is also sending out a signal capable of being detected.

On top of that, we've released hundreds of people from Gitmo, and many of them have returned to the fight. If we were as capable of tracking them as you claim, that would not happen.

I would bet you a dollar that right this minute you are locationally identifiable by the CIA if they were in the mood.

A whole dollar? Eh, forget that. You shouldn't be that careless with your lunch money.

But of course the CIA could find me. So could just about anyone given that my name and address are public. All they'd have to do is a basic google search.

The view that the CIA is omniscient is laughable, though.
 
Nobody I talked to involved with the unit at levels above "Joe" seemed to think such claims were credible.

Also, information obtained under duress does not meet the requirement necessary to demonstrate the intent to commit treason.

Desertion is not treason.

It's treason when you run right to them.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top