Bowe Bergdahl freed by Taliban after five years of captivity

[The Oi]

Top 5 targets...of what? I keep asking this. When I say does it matter, I'm not talking about a perception pov. Will adding these guys actually make the Taliban stronger? I say no.

I preface all of this by saying that I learned my lesson from the Trayvon case. I don't claim to know a goddamn thing until all the facts are out. But based on what we've seen so far, if the details of his disappearance AND the details about the Gitmo detainees are accurate my thoughts are below...

I just disagree that it matters whether receiving these detainees makes the Taliban stronger or not. Much as is the case with a great deal of foreign policy, a lot of it relates to principle. Setting a precedent, placing yourself in a position of power and fair negotiation.

Like we discussed on the phone today, on paper this is a horrible, horrible trade. You don't deny that. I agree that logic would suggest that there's more to the story about Bergdahl and his value to the US than many of us are currently seeing. But that's assuming that the Obama administration made the right call for the right reasons and I don't believe they've earned the right to get the benefit of the doubt on that. Or that really any US government, Republican or Democrat has done so.

So with all that said, whether these guys go back and strengthen them from a logistical standpoint or not...matters a lot less than WHY this trade was made, WHY we wanted this guy back and WHY we were willing to give up guys who on paper would seem to be of great danger to our country and others.

Let me ask you this...if these guys go right back and plan an attack on the United States, was this the right move?

 

[The Oi]

It's just lazy thinking, honestly.

Thinking that a controversial acquisition such as this will somehow overtake or make people forget about another controversial scenario?

Just...no.


You lambaste these guys for exploiting such events as political footballs, yet at the same time believe they don't understand the ramifications or blowback they'd receive from letting five guys out of Gitmo?


I mean, either they're criminal masterminds or they're not. Make up your minds.

For the record, I don't think I've ever seen you actively criticize a liberal viewpoint or administration. I hope that you would should it turn out to be wrong.

 

[Damage]

I preface all of this by saying that I learned my lesson from the Trayvon case. I don't claim to know a goddamn thing until all the facts are out. But based on what we've seen so far, if the details of his disappearance AND the details about the Gitmo detainees are accurate my thoughts are below...

I just disagree that it matters whether receiving these detainees makes the Taliban stronger or not. Much as is the case with a great deal of foreign policies, a lot of it relates to principle. Like we discussed on the phone today, on paper this is a horrible, horrible trade. I agree that logic would suggest that there's more to the story about Bergdahl and his value to the US than many of us are currently seeing. But that's assuming that the Obama administration made the right call for the right reasons and I don't believe they've earned the right to get the benefit of the doubt on that. Or that really any US government, Republican or Democrat has done so.

So with all that said, whether these guys go back and strengthen them from a logistical standpoint or not...matters a lot less than WHY this trade was made, WHY we wanted this guy back and WHY we were willing to give up guys who on paper would seem to be of great danger to our country and others.

Let me ask you this...if these guys go right back and plan an attack on the United States, was this the right move?

Thanks for clarifying what I tried to say in about 37 posts :chuckles:

As for your question, I don't know if it was a right or wrong move - too much grey area for me to form a logical conclusion. That said, they're always planning an attack on the US, no matter who is quarterbacking the field.

 

[Marcus]

Well for one it's 2014. If you remain stagnant you're going to fall behind. Movements evolve. This is unprecedented. Anything else and I'd just be guessing.

From a completely neutral standpoint, it looks bad. It would look bad if it was Bush, Clinton, Reagan, whoever. You're right, it is unprecedented. The only problem is that by default it begins to set a new precedent - one in which the US caves to the demands of the enemy. One in which we negotiate with terrorists. One in which we go back on the one constant thing that we have stood for in the past decade and a half that we have been at war.

From a propaganda and morale standpoint, it's a win for the Taliban. They traded one of ours (who might not even be ours anymore) for five of theirs. If, as you said earlier, they threatened to execute Bergdahl and that's what led to the trade after all this time, then that's even worse. It shows that the US will finally bend if enough pressure is applied.

Just an ugly situation all around. The only winners in this one are the Taliban and the Bergdahl family, I suppose. The prisoner we got in exchange may very well end up facing a firing squad when all is said and done for desertion in a time of war.

 

[Damage]

From a completely neutral standpoint, it looks bad. It would look bad if it was Bush, Clinton, Reagan, whoever. You're right, it is unprecedented. The only problem is that by default it begins to set a new precedent - one in which the US caves to the demands of the enemy. One in which we negotiate with terrorists. One in which we go back on the one constant thing that we have stood for in the past decade and a half that we have been at war.

From a propaganda and morale standpoint, it's a win for the Taliban. They traded one of ours (who might not even be ours anymore) for five of theirs. If, as you said earlier, they threatened to execute Bergdahl and that's what led to the trade after all this time, then that's even worse. It shows that the US will finally bend if enough pressure is applied.

Just an ugly situation all around. The only winners in this one are the Taliban and the Bergdahl family, I suppose. The prisoner we got in exchange may very well end up facing a firing squad when all is said and done for desertion in a time of war.

From a PR perspective, it's awful. That's where they WHY's cum into play and what makes this so fascinating.

 

[Damage]

I would really like a vets (or active's) thoughts on the Bergdahl situation.

1. Is it rare for someone to leave base?
2. How dangerous is it? (assuming extremely).
3. Did you ever encounter guys like him that had a false sense of reality?
4. What did the other guys in the unit do/didn't do to help keep a mentally ill person from doing stupid shit.

 

[Marcus]

Let me ask you this...if these guys go right back and plan an attack on the United States, was this the right move?

At the surface, at the absolute most superficial level, you're giving them five more people to put on the battlefield. Five more people to pop out of a crowd and shoot at our troops. Five more people to strap explosive vests to and march them into the middle of a crowded marketplace or military convoy.

And maybe there's some truth to that. But, that's not the main issue at play here. At least in my eyes, it's not.

A prisoner swap goes against our mantra for the past 13 years that we have been at war, and that is that we do not negotiate with terrorists. Dozens of other prisoners have been filmed as they've had their throats cut or their heads cut off. In many of these scenarios, the people holding them demanded the release of prisoners, or else. In all of those scenarios, the US and her allies have refused.

This swap is more than just a swap - it's a sign that the US will eventually bend. They will eventually go against what they have stood for.

It's a sign of weakness, and digging deeper, it's a sign that this country is weary and fatigued from over a decade at war.

Whether these people come back and attack us makes no difference. If not, then wonderful. If they do, it's just more salt in the wound.

It makes no difference because regardless, this country has officially (and unlawfully, I might add) gone against its battle cry of not negotiating with the evil terrorists. America, the supposed beacon of hope, freedom, and standing up for what is right and what you believe in, has just caved to the demands of terrorists. That, in and of itself, makes it the wrong decision, unless later on down the line when these vermin go scurrying back to the Taliban, we track them and then free the shit out of them with drones.

For right now, it's a weak PR grab by the government in my opinion, one that is already beginning to backfire, and a major propaganda win for the Taliban and everyone else who hates the West.

 

[AZ_]

For the record, I don't think I've ever seen you actively criticize a liberal viewpoint or administration. I hope that you would should it turn out to be wrong.

In fairness, it's a pretty small sample size as well considering I've only really thrown my two cents in on very few issues that I only felt obligated to post on because they align with my mostly liberal views.

I'm as confident I could find gripes with this (or any other) administration as I am with the fact I could say nice things about Johnny Football.

I just choose not to most times.

 

[The Oi]

I'm gonna shut my yapper at least temporarily because I think Marcus is nailing it across the board so far.

 

[AZ_]

For right now, it's a weak PR grab by the government in my opinion, one that is already beginning to backfire, and a major propaganda win for the Taliban and everyone else who hates the West.

This is really the only point on which we disagree here.

Other than that I think you're spot on, with the caveat that there is probably far more to the story than we'll ever know.

 

[The Oi]

I'm as confident I could find gripes with this (or any other) administration

You could. And I think it would add to the veracity of your future limited political posts if you were to do so when it's deserved. I think you're about to have an opportunity. :chuckles:

Anyways...I'm ready to wait and see what happens here.

 

[macbdog]

Meh. Guys from his own unit say he deserted. If they can recount the day it happened and what happened after- yeah, I give those guys the benefit of the doubt on this over official talking points from the government. Especially on the heels of his taped admission he fell behind on a patrol, which is completely counter to what his fellow soldiers have said happened.

All that said, he is a deserter, not a traitor. At least as far as we know. 5 dead soldiers in the search for him, and now 5 senior Taliban get released to bring him home. Hell of a price to pay. Has he paid the price? Remains to be seen. I would hope so, but then there needs to be a full investigation and some answers. I think his family certainly has paid that price.

 

[AZ_]

I'm gonna shut my yapper at least temporarily because I think Marcus is nailing it across the board so far.

You probably should, because you'd get absolutely crushed in this thread.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I said it in an earlier post, the Taliban isn't dumb. In fact, they're brilliant. I'm not saying these guys weren't extremely valuable assets, but who is driving that narrative - the Taliban? I mean, everyone in the Taliban is dangerous, but it could be very easy for them to say, "These are our 5 highest ranking officials and we want them released", all while knowing it's been eons since they've been with the movement, people have replaced them, and they aren't that high ranking anymore. Broad assumptions for sure, but not more far fetched than what our side is saying.

But nobody is claiming these guys aren't dangerous. We say they are, and the Taliban says they are. If the Administration does come out and says "there's no problem releasing these guys because they're really not dangerous", then fine. And of course, given the rising political blowback, they have every incentive to come out and say that if true.

But until that happens, there is no evidence that they aren't not dangerous, and lots that they are.

 

[Damage]

But nobody is claiming these guys aren't dangerous. We say they are, and the Taliban says they are. If the Administration does come out and says "there's no problem releasing these guys because they're really not dangerous", then fine. And of course, given the rising political blowback, they have every incentive to come out and say that if true.

But until that happens, there is no evidence that they aren't not dangerous, and lots that they are.

Everyone in that organization is dangerous. Not sure what you're getting at.