-------------------------------------
"My two cents worth about the whole Bergdahl affair (as a former Special Ops Officer with 27 years of military service). Please excuse the long read.
1. “We don’t leave our soldiers behind.” True, but then, hardly anyone is saying that we should have. Further, “prisoner” exchanges have, in the past, occurred at the end of hostilities, not earlier. It isn’t smart to return your enemy’s leaders back into the fight before the fight is over. But then no one really thinks anyone in the Obama Administration is smart. We really don’t know when this fight will be over. They (the Islamic terrorists) certainly aren’t giving up soon.
Regardless if Bergdahl was a deserter or not, we should have tried to get him back. If it is proven he did desert (which, on the surface, is likely) he should face the appropriate punishment. The last deserter executed for desertion, PVT Eddie Slovik, did not desert looking to join up with the Germans, but left the front lines and walked to the rear and turned himself in. Slovik was scared of combat (basically a coward) and simply left the front lines. He was executed. Bergdahl was disillusioned with US policy in Afghanistan, stated he was “ashamed to even be American” and deserted with the intention of turning himself over to the enemy. If you compare the two cases, Bergdahl’s desertion was much worse and probably deserves the same fate as Slovik, but because the Obama Administration has declared his service to be “with honor and distinction”, that will probably never happen. At least not until Obama leaves office, unless he pardons the deserter on his way out.
2. “We don’t negotiate with terrorists.” The Obama Administration will claim that (1) they were negotiating with Qatar, not the Taliban, and (2) the Taliban has not been declared a terrorist organization. Unfortunately, in this case, Bergdahl was not actually being held by the Taliban, but the Haqqani network, which has been declared a terrorist organization. So, the Obama Administration, in effect, lied again.
3. “It was worth exchanging the five terrorists for Bergdahl.” The Obama Administration claims that Qatar will keep a close eye on these five terrorist leaders to make sure they do not go back to their terrorist ways for one year. If you believe that, I have some nice beachfront property in Arizona for sale. They will soon (if they haven’t already) be involved with terrorist activities. In my mind, every US service member killed or injured as a result of a Taliban attack is a direct result of Obama releasing these five terrorist leaders. In effect, Obama will be an accessory to murder in every future American combat death in Afghanistan.
4. “We had to act quickly as Bergdahl’s health was deteriorating.” Prove it. The medical reports out of Germany state that his condition is “stable.” If he was on the verge of death, you can bet that the Administration would be trumpeting every ailment. Since they aren’t, the odds are that he is, and was, in good health. He certainly didn’t look “on the verge of death” when he was turned over to the SF. The Administration is lying. Again.
5. “We didn’t inform Congress because we think the requirement is unconstitutional and the President issued a Signing Statement.” Just because a Signing Statement was issued, it doesn’t make the requirement unconstitutional. It is still the law. By failing to inform Congress 30 days prior to the release, Obama broke the law. Again. The families of every US service member killed in Afghanistan from this point forward need to file suit against Obama for violating the law and allowing the terrorists to return to the fight, resulting in the death of their loved one. Probably won’t result in any trials, but certainly would shine additional light on Obama’s lawlessness.
6. “We didn’t inform Congress because the Taliban threatened to kill Bergdahl if the exchange was publicized.” That’s odd, since the Taliban told the press that they were working on the prisoner exchange six weeks ago. Another Administration lie.
7. This exchange emboldens the Taliban/Haqqani network to attempt to capture US service members and hold them for ransom, either cash or for more detainee releases. That’s why you don’t negotiate with criminals/terrorists – it just encourages them.
8. “Bergdahl served with honor and distinction.” One of the most brazen lies I have heard. This even exceeds “The Benghazi attack was a result of an anti-Islam video.” If the Obama Administration didn’t know that Bergdahl was a deserter; that the military had stopped looking for him as he had, in effect, joined the “other side”; and that Bergdahl had made anti-American statements, they are more stupid that we thought. That Bergdahl deserted was public knowledge. The lie was an effort to minimize the damage of releasing five terrorist leaders (two of which are wanted by the UN, charged with being war criminals).
9. The optics of having Bergdahl’s father (who appears to be a Taliban sympathizer) in the Rose Garden with Obama was a disaster. Obama was counting on sympathy for the family, but when the father started spouting Islamic verses, coupled with the likelihood that Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter, the American people were insulted and disgusted.
10. It is reported that the US kept track of Bergdahl using drones, spies, and satellites and could have conducted a “rescue” operation several times during his detainment by the Haqqani network. We didn’t for two reasons: (1) It wasn’t worth possibly losing a Special Operator to rescue a deserter, and (2) the Obama Administration wouldn’t give the OK as they wanted to trade terrorists for Bergdahl. It appears that the Obama Administration was determined to release the five terrorist leaders back into the fight against us, and used the detainee exchange to do so.
11. Since Bergdahl was actually held by the Haqqani network, not the Taliban, and Taliban terrorists were released from GITMO, what did the Haqqani network get out of the deal? Did they receive cash, as posed by LTC North? If so, we have set another very bad precedent, encouraging terrorist capturing our service members and holding them for cash ransom.
Closing thoughts: The emphasis shouldn’t be on the status of Bergdahl as a deserter. As a veteran, I deplore his actions. But his status is beside the point. It lowers our sympathy for him, but isn’t the main issue. We should focus (as many are) on the illegal release of five terrorist leaders. Obama violated the law by failing to inform Congress, then went and released the last five detainees we should have released. That is the big issue. Obama claims the exchange was worth it. It won’t be if one US Service member is killed or injured as a result of this release. And don’t kid yourself, the five terrorist leaders are already involved in more terrorist activities and attacks against Americans.
Finally, three wishes (as granted by the HA genie): (1) I wish everyone would stop saying he was a POW. It appears that he deserted and was “detained” after finding the Taliban or the Haqqani network. There are reports of him playing soccer with the terrorists and taking part in marksmanship training. Hardly the activities of a POW. (2) I wish everyone would stop saying he was held by the Taliban. It appears that he was held by the terrorist Haqqani network. They are aligned with the Taliban, but separate. (3) I wish everyone would stop saying he was “captured” by the Taliban/Haqqani network. He deserted, went looking for the Taliban, and someone took him into custody. Hardly a “capture”. He basically surrendered to the enemy. When we say that “Bergdahl was a POW captured by the Taliban”, we are supporting the Obama Administrative narrative. When we say “Bergdahl deserted and was detained by the Haqqani terrorist network”, we are being accurate and are negating the Obama Administrative narrative.
That is all. Now back to your normal programming.
GAlpha10 on June 6, 2014 at 9:53 AM
------------------------------
/gun
No comments:
Post a Comment