POW deal?
 

This has been in the news for the past day or two:

[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27658821[/url]

The more you read about the story the more complicated it gets.

Thoughts?

When I heard this story the other day I thought, "Isn't this just like that prisoner exchange from a couple years ago?"

which, of course, was the same prisoner exchange. Just the negotiations have been going on for years.

Congress acts surprised, you didn't tell us right now that you were making the exchange, those last two years of keeping various armed services committees in the loop don't count. Yes, let's score political points in an election year.

Right now a lot of people are, perhaps rightly, upset because Bergdahl just up and walked away one night. And at least six Americans died in the ensuing search for him.

Of course, lost in some of that message is how every time his fellows mentioned that he'd been talking about walking away at the time, and how he was upset by various things going on etc. Not a one of them tried to get him psychological help.

I believe that in the end soldiers will be happy to know that the US will go to great lengths--even to the point of releasing our bitterest enemies from captivity--to free American soldiers. Even, and perhaps especially, the young and stupid and broken ones.

[url]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607[/url]

note the date on the article. And how everything that is now "just coming out" so that we can be properly outraged is discussed in detail in this article.

One way of thinking about it: He spent five years in a *Taliban* prison. I'd say "time served" would be a far greater punishment than any that a court-martial might concoct. I somehow feel like the Eighth Amendment might be breached just a wee bit in such an environment; certainly it would be far from a walk in the park.

[QUOTE=chappy;375007][url]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607[/url]

note the date on the article. And how everything that is now "just coming out" so that we can be properly outraged is discussed in detail in this article.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for posting this link. Michael Hastings was an outstanding reporter, and this article, though long, certainly offers some insights into this war.

[url]http://www.michaelyon-online.com/classified-documents-re-bowe-bergdahl-capture-compliments-bradley-chelsea-manning.htm[/url]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bergdahls-writings-reveal-a-fragile-young-man/2014/06/11/fb9349fe-f165-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html[/url]

Of course, Republicans never mention this factor:

As long as Bergdahl was held captive by a Taliban faction, U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan had to refrain from mounting certain types of attack on that faction, lest that faction execute Bergdahl and distribute video of the execution, in retaliation.

[B]Now that Bergdahl has been released, those U.S. forces are no longer constrained by that consideration.[/B] That extra freedom of operation is [U]much[/U] more militarily important than whatever minor military benefit the Taliban could derive from five former detainees [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27658821"][I]who've been out of action for 13 years[/I][/URL].

But you don't hear Republican leaders admitting that [B]Bergdahl's release increases the effectiveness of U.S. and Afghan anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan[/B], because smearing Obama is more important than assisting U.S. soldiers in combat, for GOP strategists, regardless of all their we-support-the-military rah-rah.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;376375]That extra freedom of operation is [U]much[/U] more militarily important...[/QUOTE]

I disagree. IMO, the extra military freedom is useless (or at least won't be used) in a war that Obama is in the process of winding down. Also, I think it unlikely that over the last 5 years military leaders altered their plans in any significant way over one POW. I could be wrong.

[QUOTE=Prime95;376384]a war that Obama is in the process of winding down.[/QUOTE]I was not aware that Obama had that power over the Taliban (or the Afghan government).

I guess my omission of "and Afghan" inside my first two uses of "U.S. forces" may have confused the issue, instead of clarifying it as I intended.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;376375]As long as Bergdahl was held captive by a Taliban faction, U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan had to refrain from mounting certain types of attack on that faction, lest that faction execute Bergdahl and distribute video of the execution, in retaliation.[/QUOTE]

If your #1 consideration is "keeping your soldiers from harm" (or equivalently, "denying the evildoers the chance to capture one of your own"), you've got no business conducting military operations in the presence of hostile forces.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;376575]I was not aware that Obama had that power over the Taliban (or the Afghan government).[/QUOTE]

Strawman - 2 guys in bar about to come to blows, you are implying that one of them walking away is not an option.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;376576]If your #1 consideration is "keeping your soldiers from harm" (or equivalently, "denying the evildoers the chance to capture one of your own"),[/QUOTE]Ernst,

You really need to pay better attention to comprehending what you're replying to, before you post your reply. (Were you tired?)

You're on the wrong track throughout that reply.

I was assuming that my readers were aware of how much more powerful media communications are in current warfare, compared to past warfare, and how valuable it has been to the Taliban to have Bergdahl available for videoing.

To describe that as a "#1 consideration" is unwarranted. The radio-interviewed military adviser I got the idea from never hinted such a thing. I said it was a "factor"; I never said it was the [U]#1[/U] factor. It was simply one factor among many that commanders had to consider -- while Bergdahl was still in captivity, that is,

Then, to go on to equate the factor I described to "keeping your soldiers from harm" and "denying the evildoers the chance to capture one of your own" again just shows lack of comprehension. :-) You apparently forgot that the context was that [U]the Taliban [I]had already had Bergdahl in captivity[/I][/U].

It was Bergdahl's actual safety that could have been jeopardized (before the release), not some other soldier's potential future safety.

I never mentioned, or hinted at, any theoretical harm to, or capture of, soldiers who'd not yet been harmed or captured. Furthermore, [I]that possibility would not have been appreciably affected by Bergdahl's release (this thread's topic)[/I] -- so how could I have drawn any contrast before and after Bergdahl's release if what you suggest is what I was alluding to?

[quote]Strawman - 2 guys in bar about to come to blows, you are implying that one of them walking away is not an option.[/quote]No, I'm not implying that at all.

1) The proper analogy for the claim that Obama is in the process of winding down a war (with no mention of the Taliban or Afghans) would be a claim that the guy who is walking away from the bar is dragging the whole bar with him, and

2) The implication by me was that the walking-away guy is taking just his own equipment with him, not the whole bar.