Bowe Bergdahl freed by Taliban after five years of captivity

[The Human Q-Tip]

^great eulogy. Gave me the chills...

I spoke to a colleague of mine who is a marine, and we talked about all of the facts that might never be known:
1. Bergdahl might have intelligence and it's being utilized right now.

Possible, but extraordinarily unlikely for two reasons. First, we could have no knowledge of exactly what he may have found out. So guessing he had some intelligence would be a complete shot in the dark, which hardly seems like a good reason to do a trade. He was held prisoner, and those guys aren't usually made privy to valuable intel by their captors. Second, you'd have to assume the Taliban that were holding him were complete morons for giving him access to important intel, and then agreeing to turn him over while knowing he had that access.

2. There might be some other unspoken agreements between the "bad guys" and the US, not just the prison exchanges. E.g. - we release these 5 guys, then you keep attacks from your people off of our soil.

And that would be dependent on believing they could be trusted.

3. The 5 released guys aren't necessarily safe. They might meet a fate far worse than Gitmo, and they might not be "released" totally, per se.

Well, they've been turned over to Qatar.

I haven't had the time to read the ins-and-outs, but there's quite a few possibilities out there to consider. I think it's fair to say that, on the surface, this is a real head scratcher, so my next line of thought isn't "what a blunder?!?" but more "what else don't we know?"

Again, I don't see this as being a head scratcher at all. I'm kind of confused as to why people think that is. I think it's been generally conceded that they underestimated the blowback. And Hagel has come right out and said they hope this will build trust to start peace talks again. If you dig a bit deeper, there apparently is a perceived minor schism of some sort within the Taliban, and the belief is that the people with whom we made this deal are more moderate than some of the others. By doing this deal and releasing these guys, we believe we have strengthened the hand of the moderates who are more interested in peace. This isn't me just making shit up -- Hagel and others have made statements to that effect if you dig. That's why I said it was eerily like the logic for Arms for Hostages.

Anyway, if you look at all of that together and consider that's what the Administration thinks the result will be, then doing the deal makes sense from that perspective. Again, including their misreading of the negative reaction to Bergdahl himself.

I mean, it's kind of funny. The Adminstration is saying openly "this is why we did it", the opposition to this move doesn't seem to dispute that motivation, and yet, other people are saying "there must be more".

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It doesn't have anything to do with his conduct. I was referring to the Obama lying.

Also, where did the whole he was kidnapped shit cum from? He got kidnapped from his post, he abandoned his post and THEN got kidnapped? I also heard he went out drinking with some Afghani's and then got "captured" by the Taliban

Well, the most charitable view of his conduct is that he left his base voluntarily, intended to go somewhere else, and then was involuntarily captured by the Taliban while wandering around.

 

[Cavatt]

Well, the most charitable view of his conduct is that he left his base voluntarily, intended to go somewhere else, and then was involuntarily captured by the Taliban while wandering around.

Do you think there is an intelligence reason for wanting him back? I really don't understand what they did. Is he the only known POW that the Taliban has? I thought it was pretty uncommon for a guy doing these type of operations to know the local language. Shouldn't he have been doing something related to that? I thought they were super scarce.

This is the conspiracy theorist in me, because i just watched JFK and they were talking about how Oswald knew Russian and was actually a covert CIA guy. It seems like when the answer just doesn't jive that there is something else there.

Assuming he is a deserter, what is the motivation for the Obama administration to do this? I find it a little hard to believe that they thought this would get people saying, "Good trade!" The whole thing just seems very odd. Even the timing. Why now after 5 years?

 

[natedagg]

Possible, but extraordinarily unlikely for two reasons. First, we could have no knowledge of exactly what he may have found out. So guessing he had some intelligence would be a complete shot in the dark, which hardly seems like a good reason to do a trade. He was held prisoner, and those guys aren't usually made privy to valuable intel by their captors. Second, you'd have to assume the Taliban that were holding him were complete morons for giving him access to important intel, and then agreeing to turn him over while knowing he had that access.



And that would be dependent on believing they could be trusted.


Well, they've been turned over to Qatar.



Again, I don't see this as being a head scratcher at all. I'm kind of confused as to why people think that is. I think it's been generally conceded that they underestimated the blowback. And Hagel has come right out and said they hope this will build trust to start peace talks again. If you dig a bit deeper, there apparently is a perceived minor schism of some sort within the Taliban, and the belief is that the people with whom we made this deal are more moderate than some of the others. By doing this deal and releasing these guys, we believe we have strengthened the hand of the moderates who are more interested in peace. This isn't me just making shit up -- Hagel and others have made statements to that effect if you dig. That's why I said it was eerily like the logic for Arms for Hostages.

Anyway, if you look at all of that together and consider that's what the Administration thinks the result will be, then doing the deal makes sense from that perspective. Again, including their misreading of the negative reaction to Bergdahl himself.

I mean, it's kind of funny. The Adminstration is saying openly "this is why we did it", the opposition to this move doesn't seem to dispute that motivation, and yet, other people are saying "there must be more".

Right. So maybe all of the intel he knew about our procedures/tactics was enough to want him back, but that doesn't make sense after 5 years. If there are no there other reasons besides what has been stated, then this is absurd. From all I have read (aka this thread), Berghdahl was sick in the head, left deliberately, and didn't really warrant all of the sacrifices made then and now. Soldiers are dead because of him. It doesn't get any more real than that.

 

[RonG]

Calls for impeachment hearings against Barack Obama have been common throughout his presidency, which has been plagued by numerous scandals and allegations of increasingly brazen cover-ups.

The latest controversy surrounding the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has given those proponents even more ammunition to use against Obama. It has also brought new voices in favor of impeachment to the debate.

Among those are former U.S. Army Lt. Col. Allen West, who explained Tuesday why he feels the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl’s release from Taliban custody likely warrant impeachment. He listed a number of factors that helped him reach this opinion.

First, he explained that Obama unilaterally declared unconstitutional a measure he himself signed into law requiring he give 30 days’ notice to Congress before releasing Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

“Once again Obama used selective discretion as to what law he feels he must adhere to – in this case it has severe ramifications for our national security,” West wrote.

The White House negotiated with the Taliban, he continued, which is a “non-state, non-uniform terrorist organization.”

Furthermore, when choosing which five terrorists he would allow to be exchanged for Bergdahl, West noted he picked a quintet of the most dangerous terrorists in the facility.

“There are some 141 detainees at GITMO,” he wrote. “The five released were senior Taliban officials, basically members of Mullah Omar’s inner circle. If we wanted to release detainees in exchange for Bergahl, there were many others to choose from. Why these?”

The recidivism rate among released terrorists has doubled, he wrote; and even administration sources up to and including Obama admit these five released prisoners pose a real threat to American safety.

In exchange for setting such dangerous individuals free, West concluded that America received in return a “deserter, who by his own self-proclamation harbors anti-American sentiments.”

While Obama claims that “no American should be left behind,” West points out the apparent hypocrisy of that statement, wondering if he has “forgotten about Benghazi and Marine SGT Tahmooressi.”

West concludes by declaring Obama’s “unilateral negotiations with terrorists and the ensuing release of their key leadership without consult – mandated by law – with the U.S. Congress represents high crimes and misdemeanors, an impeachable offense.”

He went on to call on congressional leaders “to draft articles of impeachment as no one is above the law in America.”

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/al...peachment-great-argument/#xDj4x7zxsj4wP7ty.99


My wife and I served in the Marines and our oldest is in his second year in the Army, I am telling you right now if he walked away and left his brothers in arms as this jackhole did I would disown him. Considering he was raised right it would never happen.

 

[Damage]

Welp, looks like Hillary is pissed, considering she worked on this deal for a long time, but not to be done like this. To wit:

There were two main differences between the Clinton-led negotiations that took place in 2011 and 2012 and the largely White House-led process in late 2013 and this year that ultimately achieved the prisoner swap. First of all, Clinton’s deal would have had stricter measures to ensure that the Taliban held up their end of the deal—and kept their released commanders from returning to the fight. The Qatari regime under the Clinton deal would have been required to do a whole host of things to ensure that the released prisoners were adhering to the terms of their pseudo-house arrest, including surveillance, systematic monitoring, and travel bans that would last until there was peace.

Secondly, for Clinton, the prisoner swap only made sense if it was one piece of a series of events that led to a peace process between the Taliban and the Afghan government. In February 2011, Clinton delivered a major speech that set out her offer to the Taliban for a future inside the Afghan political system.

And eluding to what I thought.

“I think Hillary would love to have Guantanamo closed by 2017 and Obama shares that desire,” said Moran. “And if this is what you want, then these are the things you have to do.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...n-was-skeptical-of-taliban-bergdahl-swap.html

 

[Tlyons]

Can we please get the fuck out of AFG

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Do you think there is an intelligence reason for wanting him back? I really don't understand what they did.

Like I said, the reasons are all out there publicly.

Is he the only known POW that the Taliban has?

Yes, and that is part of their thinking. That the war is winding down, and that him still being held captive is one of the "loose ends" they want to tie up. Again, I think that's stupid, but that's what their thought it.

I thought it was pretty uncommon for a guy doing these type of operations to know the local language. Shouldn't he have been doing something related to that? I thought they were super scarce.

He was trying to learn it on his own after he enlisted, which would mean he couldn't claim that he actually knew the language at the time of enlistment. So at that point, he's just another recruit and of no additional value. If he would have acquired true proficiency, he may later have been able to apply for a lateral move to a different MOS. But based on what I've read about this kid -- his own comments and writings before enlistment -- he saw himself as sort of a junior Special Forces (Green Beret), who would be working much more closely with the indigenous population on an individual or small team level. He found out that being just a plain grunt (which we always held in the highest esteem) wasn't quite as romantic and idealistic as he'd imagined his duties would be.

This is the conspiracy theorist in me, because i just watched JFK and they were talking about how Oswald knew Russian and was actually a covert CIA guy. It seems like when the answer just doesn't jive that there is something else there.

Well, I've learned a long time ago not to argue with conspiracy theorists. I'll just say that the exchange makes absolute sense to me if you have the Administration's view on 1) getting this guy home despite him being AWOL/deserting, and 2) wanting a peace deal on paper before final withdrawal.

Assuming he is a deserter, what is the motivation for the Obama administration to do this? I find it a little hard to believe that they thought this would get people saying, "Good trade!" The whole thing just seems very odd. Even the timing. Why now after 5 years?

I've given the reasons multiple times, and they're not my reasons. They're the ones advanced by the Administration itself.

As for the timing, well, there is that whole VA thing. And, they just (sort of) announced the drawdown to a few thousand troops, he was the only prisoner in their custody, and they claim they just wanted to tie up loose ends. And, you have to understand that they really did think most people would applaud this. Shit, consider the reaction here in the U.S.. Initially, it was considered this great thing. It was only after military people started speaking out that the tide turned in terms of public opinion.

ETA:

But officials in the Pentagon and intelligence communities had successfully fought off release of the five men in the past, officials tell TIME. “This was out of the norm,” says one official familiar with the debate over the dangers of releasing the five Taliban officials. “There was never the conversation.” Obama’s move was an ultimate victory for those at the White House and the State Department who had previously argued the military should “suck it up and salute,” says the official familiar with the debate.

http://time.com/2818827/taliban-bergdahl-pow-release-objections-white-house/

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Diane Feinstein also isn't happy:

Feinstein also said leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence panels were almost unanimously against a prisoner trade when it came up in 2011.

She said the chairmen and ranking Republicans of the “connected committees” spent a lot of time in 2011 reviewing the possibility of a prisoner swap and came out firmly opposed to releasing senior militants from the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

“There were very strong views and they were virtually unanimous against the trade,” she said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/208070-white-house-apologizes-to-senate-intelligence#ixzz33g2eezeq
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Right. So maybe all of the intel he knew about our procedures/tactics was enough to want him back, but that doesn't make sense after 5 years.

Oh, right, that's kind of ridiculous. He was a freaking PFC, and not in a valuable (in terms of unique knowledge) specialty. I don't even buy the Taliban narrative that he was teaching them tactics and how to make IED's. Again, he was a PFC who'd only been in country a few months, not someone who is going to have such advanced tactical knowledge so as to be of use to Taliban guys who've been fighting for years. And they knew far more about making IED's than he did.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Welp, looks like Hillary is pissed, considering she worked on this deal for a long time, but not to be done like this. To wit:

Well, everyone always advocates for the best deal they can get. Although this part is a bit weird:

"A framework for negotiations approved by Clinton had tougher measures to ensure the Taliban detainees would not return to the battlefield, including releasing the prisoners in two phases. The officials said that under her plan, the first three would be released and then the remaining two would be freed 60 days later when they released Bergdahl."

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/04/politics/bergdahl-clinton-comments/index.html?eref=edition

In fact, in this deal, the prisoners only get transferred after Bergdahl was recovered.

Those officials are all talking about what she was saying back when she was still in office, and obviously you try to negotiate the best deal possible so it makes sense that negotiating postures back then were more strict. I'd imagine everyone on our side wanted a tougher deal then, but you can only get what you can get. But at some point, you get the other side as far as you can, and then you either do the deal, or you don't. Ultimately, it's that final call that matters. And when asked now specifically about the deal as it came down, she didn't reject it. She, like the President, really emphasizes this so-called tradition about "bringing everyone home".

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...wnplays-controversy-around-bergdahls-release/

One other thing to consider here. The guys we released were Taliban, not AQ. That presents a real problem with our justification for continuing to hold them after we withdraw from Afghanistan. There's a very good chance that Administration lawyers advised the President that we'd have to release them, or at least turn them over to the Afghan government, once we pulled our troops out. So given that Obama just announced the pullout, our leverage would be decreasing every day.

 

[AZ_]

[video=youtube;WIMOibtdOQE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIMOibtdOQE[/video]

 

[The Oi]

[video=youtube;WIMOibtdOQE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIMOibtdOQE[/video]

He didn't change his take at all. The qualifications he made in his February statement would allow him to say exactly what he just did and not contradict himself.

One can only hope that CNN watchers won't buy into a weak attempt to pass the buck, but all of our news is designed for saps so some might.

 

[AZ_]

He didn't change his take at all. The qualifications he made in his February statement would allow him to say exactly what he just did and not contradict himself.

One can only hope that CNN watchers won't buy into a weak attempt to pass the buck, but all of our news is designed for saps so some might.

Still a fun tap dance to watch, especially for a man his age.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Still a fun tap dance to watch, especially for a man his age.

I don't know, dude. That kind of thing makes me uncomfortable. And I'm not even a McCain fan politically even though we're both alumni.

 

[Tlyons]

How McCain hasn't parlayed his 6 years of being a POW into a presidency is baffling to me.