Jump to content

So - Bergdahl


Ms. Spam
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest El Chalupacabra

Oh man, do I have strong opinions about this, some that may even be contradictory!

 

The US should have done everything possible within reason to secure his release, but I would have liked to see his freedom gained through other means and I don't think it was wise to trade him for 5 terrorists.

 

I don't have a problem with the fact that Bergdahl is free, but I do have a problem with how it was done. We don't know what was going on behind the scenes and there may have been a good reason why it went down like it did that the news can't/isn't reporting beyond Obama just effing up and not allowing for congressional debate and possibly breaking the law that is, but the thing about his release I have reservations about is setting the precedent of negotiating with terrorists. Not only does this serve to grant the Taliban a moral victory in this case, it could possibly encourage future captures with similar demands. I get the sense that this is just an example of Obama, who was never a Gitmo fan to begin with, doing this because this is his solution to dismantling it, and he (naively) sees this as a win/win as a way to get a US POW(s) out at the same time. I don't think Obama anticipated the back lash, or completely understands the possible ramifications of this trade.

 

However, getting Bergdahl back speaks more about us as a nation than whether or not he "deserves" to be released or not (in public opinion) because as a vet myself, we just don't leave our own behind. Bergdahl may be guilty of desertion and will likely stand trial for it as he should, and may have even posted some crazy, unpatriotic things BEFORE he was captured, but some of these pundits and politicians saying we should have wrote him off is completely despicable. I think it is likely he was suffering from PTSD when he allegedly deserted and probably wasn't in his right mind, and none of that deserves being captured for 5 years by the Taliban and living with the daily threat of getting his head cut off. I also completely discount what this guy said while captured, because that was all said under duress. Also, what purpose would it serve to get him released, then send him to the stockade at Fort Leavenworth? If he did anything wrong, just give him a general discharge, and be done with it.

 

Isn't it ironic that John McCain, a guy who was also a POW and build a political career around that fact is the worst among them and the loudest in saying we shouldn't have got this guy back? I mean Bergdahl was a POW for 5 years of the Taliban, so whatever he did wrong, he more than paid for. You would think McCain would have some empathy, there. And the soldiers who died looking for him, well that is very tragic and they are heroes in my mind, but as far as I am concerned the blame really belongs squarely on the Taliban, not Bergdahl: it's a little like blaming the woman when she is raped, isn't it? I also think the nastiness this guy and his family have been receiving is deplorable. Bergdahl may not be a hero, but he is a victim, and those who are harassing him, his family, and his home town, are despicable. If he did desert, he will stand trial for it, but no one should be harassing this guy.

 

That all said, I think it speaks volumes about the inconsistency of the Obama administration that he hasn't even bothered to call the Mexican government to secure the release of Andrew Tahmooressi, who accidentally got in a wrong lane and got locked into going across the Tijuana border with weapons in his vehicle, and was arrested on a weapons charge, even though he declared them immediately and asked to be allowed to make a u-turn back to the US side, BEFORE any search was made. Having been to San Diego, I can see how this could be done, and how hard it would be to correct that mistake before being forced to cross the border, due to traffic flow. I mean this poor guy was chained to a bed for a month, and faces the possibility of 20 years in prison. While he will likely be released eventually, where is the same sense of urgency?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I smell a rat. This is SOOOoooooo shady. I'm not above NOT asking for permission first, but then, you'd better have a damn good reason.

 

Why just this guy? Why now? Maybe I just don't know enough about it but I just don't buy that we're getting anything close to all the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, getting Bergdahl back speaks more about us as a nation than whether or not he "deserves" to be released or not (in public opinion) because as a vet myself, we just don't leave our own behind. Bergdahl may be guilty of desertion and will likely stand trial for it as he should, and may have even posted some crazy, unpatriotic things BEFORE he was captured... I think it is likely he was suffering from PTSD when he allegedly deserted and probably wasn't in his right mind, and none of that deserves being captured for 5 years by the Taliban and living with the daily threat of getting his head cut off... Also, what purpose would it serve to get him released, then send him to the stockade at Fort Leavenworth? If he did anything wrong, just give him a general discharge, and be done with it... I mean Bergdahl was a POW for 5 years of the Taliban, so whatever he did wrong, he more than paid for. You would think McCain would have some empathy, there. And the soldiers who died looking for him, well that is very tragic and they are heroes in my mind, but as far as I am concerned the blame really belongs squarely on the Taliban, not Bergdahl: it's a little like blaming the woman when she is raped, isn't it? I also think the nastiness this guy and his family have been receiving is deplorable. Bergdahl may not be a hero, but he is a victim, and those who are harassing him, his family, and his home town, are despicable. If he did desert, he will stand trial for it, but no one should be harassing this guy.

 

Y'know, I don't care much about this whole deal that's taking place. It's like a big joke. But, no, let's absolutely not "give him a general discharge and be done with it."

 

Desertion is the lowest of crimes. Most crimes are crimes against a state or against some confusing maze of books and codes. Desertion is a crime against your fellow man. It's a crime against everyone who continued to stand their ground and cover their corners and fire their weapons. It's a crime against everyone who continued to fight, even when they were tired and hot and cold and hungry and thirsty and wet and filthy and when they lost their arms and their legs and their innocence, watching their dudes bleed out and die. It's a crime against everyone who pushed on. We've lost 6,810 Americans in this war, almost 10,000 when you factor in the 3,000 or so killed on 9/11. The dead of our allies puts the number of troops over 7,000. Desertion is a crime against every one of them. I left college and joined the Marines right after 9/11, and I'll admit that even I never thought we would lose 6,810.

 

Y'know, I'm convinced that most of the civilian leadership doesn't understand what desertion really means or how grave a crime it really is. You see it in this whole ridiculous circus that is the "Saga of Bowe Berghdal." You see it with some of these pundits and politicians making statements that seem to speak to what he did with some sort of indifference, like they really don't care. Some even stated that he served with "honor" and "dignity." They either don't understand those words, or they just don't care, and neither one is good. There's an old macabre joke about how if you stood two military prisoners up next to each other, one guilty of rape and murder and the other guilty of desertion, every soldier would stare with complete disdain for the murdering rapist, but would also mumble, just loud enough for the other to hear, "At least he's no deserter." It's kind of a sick joke; I'll give you that. But it's also an explanation as to just how disgusting desertion is seen among troops.

 

This man took an oath. And I'm not even talking about the one where you raise your right hand and swear to defend the Constitution. I'm talking about the unwritten oath. I'm talking about the oath that isn't even said aloud, because it doesn't need to be. I'm talking about the one where you promise to watch out for your fellow man, no matter what. I don't particularly care about his feelings before his captivity. You don't walk away. It doesn't matter how you feel about the war or where you are or where you're from or what you're doing here or how you got here or what you believe in or what the people think or if your girl's cheating on you or if grandma's feeling better or when the rain's going to stop or why all the American cigarettes are gone. What matters is that you said you would be there. You said you had my back. You said that I could count on you. We all said that. And that should mean something. And that's why the crime of desertion is so bad, especially in war. Especially in war. It's why I have very little sympathy for those people who ran out on their enlistments to Canada and then cried when they didn't get asylum. No, they made a commitment and an oath. It is a big deal. And you know that.

 

And that only speaks to the moral perspective of the situation, which should be good enough. But what about the operational perspective? How many people were killed and wounded when the army stopped everything they were doing and shifted to finding him? And what about the second and third order effects that resulted from this? How many assets were diverted to the search? How many people were killed and wounded because commanders lost assets that were previously supporting their ops? How many entire ops and mission sets were stalled or even shelved completely in order to shift gears and look for him? How many areas didn't get shaped and/or patrolled because those ops were delayed or cancelled? Now multiply that over months and years. How many ops were delayed or cancelled in the ensuing years because some piece of info, which was usually worthless but still had to be taken seriously, regarding the whereabouts of Bowe Berghdal somehow came across someone's pos from somewhere. How many of those areas were never shaped? How many fell to the enemy? How many IEDs were laid in areas we eventually did return to before we returned? How many positions were prepared? How many smuggling routes were opened? How many locals sided with the enemy? How many people died in result? When you think of the intelligence ops that went down, how many new ops had to be planned and executed? How many sources were diverted to findind him? How many of those sources and/or agents were killed trying to get info on him? You see how many tangents this creates? I could go on forever. Literally... forever.

 

For five years we looked for him in varying capacities. Priority question number one for every unit in theater, from Paktika to Helmand to Farah, was "Where the f*** is Bowe Berghdal?" Everyone was looking for him. And every time some piece of information floated in from somewhere, everyone froze to see where it went. This meant that ops were delayed or shelved because of some possibility that we may find another clue that may or may not lead to Bowe Berghdal. A whole new dynamic was thrust into the strategic equation, and it sometimes took away manpower and resources from ongoing operations elsewhere. And that meant that other outfits didn't have everything they may have had otherwise. And that, I guarentee in one way or another, got people killed.

 

Now let me be clear in all this. Am I saying that we should have left him? No. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. We had a responsibility to do whatever was in our power to get him back. And that's where the tragedy in this whole circus lies. Because you're right about one thing: the one, final thing that resulted from all this is just the cherry on top. Look at what we had to give up for him. We had to give up five of the most despicable human beings on the face of this earth to get him back. Hardcore extremists. Terrorists. War criminals. And we had to do it; we had no choice. It was either that, or leave him behind. Because they had all the time in the world, and we didn't. We were going to agree to some lop-sided, short ended deal, or we were just never going to get him back. That's the sad reality of it.

 

Most people will never understand how bad a deal this was for us. These are the worst of the worst. And there are a thousand others just like them. If only people could see the files on some of these dudes. They're so bad, hell doesn't even want to deal with them. That's why they're all hanging out in dumps like Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen. They're raping, drug dealing, slave trading, woman beating, kidnapping, child molesting, murdering terrorists. And that's just the list of their greatest hits. They shoot up entire villages. They kidnap and sell children. They cut people's heads off with dull, rusty knives and put the videos on the internet. They contribute nothing to this world. They have no reason to live. They should be hanging at the end of a rope, not living on a villa in Qatar or a compound in Pakistan or a n extended home in Libya. They want us to burn. We know this, because they've told us. People think it's over, and it's only just begun. People still just don't get it. You hear it all the time, "When does it end? When does the war end?" It doesn't. It will never end. Never ever going to end. Not this time. This war doesn't end. Ever. So Bin Laden's dead. So were winding down in Afghanistan. So the economy's rebounding. Great. The war continues. It always will. That's why they should not be let out. And that's why the price was way too high, but we had a responsibility to get him back. But in doing this, and we had to, how many more people are going to die? Because they're going to go back to doing what they were doing before. It's what they do. It's all they do. That's the tragedy.

 

So how did all this come about? Because he walked away. He wasn't captured. He walked off in the middle the worst place in the world to be an American (an American combatant at that) and got himself rolled up. And it's not his fault? None of this is his fault? None of any of the above? It's all the Talis' fault? You really believe that? You said that he's a victim. Of what? He walked away. Tell me how that isn't his own fault. I'm not upset. Really, I'm not. I'm confused. I'm confused about how this isn't his fault. I'm confused about how desertion in combat, resulting in... all that, rates a general discharge and a good luck. How is it not his fault? The Talis are going to try to kill us regardless. That's how it works. It's a war. So what is their fault in this particular situation? The soldiers who died looking for him, died because they were looking for him, but they never should have been looking for him. He never should have been there. I mean... okay... I could understand if they were in this massive gunfight, and somehow they were overrun or he was separated or whatever, and he ended up captured. That's one thing. I can understand that. What I can't understand is how he can desert his post, for whatever reason, get rolled up, and somehow not be at fault when those who are sent to look for him get killed. How is that like blaming a rape victim for her/his own rape? He caused this to happen. Is blaming some joke of a patrol leader for getting people killed in an errant fire mission like blaming rape victims too? No. It's common sense, because he obviously doesn't know proper radio procedures and/or how to read a map and has no business whatsoever in combat, much less leading a patrol.

 

If you want to know my personal opinion, it seems to me that he may have some mental problems. I hear "traitor" and all this other stuff. I'm not sure that he is mentally competent enough to be a traitor. There may be something wrong upstairs, if you get my meaning. He probably never should have been in the army. I have a feeling some recruiter was sweating the month's mission, and he was the quota recruit. From everything gathered, he seems kinda weird. I mean, you gotta be about bats*** crazy if you think you're going to stroll up to the doorstep alone and sit down over tea and talk sports and childhood memories with the Talis. I don't think he's all there, like a couple cans short a 30 rack. Know what I mean?

 

But it's no excuse, and the army should not "give him a general discharge and be done with it." He should be allowed to recover. He should be given a short time with his family. He should be recalled and tried in a general court-martial. And then he should not receive a general discharge. He should receive a dishonorable discharge and sent to jail for a time. It doesn't need to be for the rest of his life. It should be for whatever time is deemed necessary by the court-martial. But the US Army should not let the fact that what happened to him, as a result of his own doing, cloud their judgement nor their duty to the law and to the soldiers serving within its ranks. I'm a very forgiving person. I don't hate Bowe Berghdal. But precedents need to be upheld, and laws need to be enforced.

 

He deserted while serving in combat. 70 years ago they would have had him put up against a wall and shot. Spending some time in the brig or stockade is mercy as far as I see. We swore an oath, and it should mean something. If they just let it slide, because they feel sorry for him for getting himself rolled up, then they tell everyone else that it doesn't mean anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PMJ - you hit on the biggest issue for me and the people that are military on my FB feed. They don't care about the political side as much (Although they are bringing up dealing with terrorists and the fallout from that). Their biggest complaint has been the AWOL thing. And to me, that bothers me as well. I also think you're right about his mental state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would this be more "acceptable" if we diagnosed the 5 Taliban prisoners with "mental illness" that needed to be "treated" with a lobotomy? Lobotomize those bastards pre-prison exchange. Then trade them for our political prisoner, LOL, what you gonna do Taliban? File a charge of abuse in some court of law? Given that you are a terrorist in the US and not recognized by international law...We just bested you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

Desertion is the lowest of crimes

Treason? Sure. Rape? Sure. Murder? Sure. Torture? Sure. Desertion when you are in your right mind? Sure it is pretty low, and is a hell of a selfish act, but it's not the worst, IMHO. But I am not convinced YET that he was in his right mind when he deserted. If he was, then I reserve the right to change my opinion. Innocent until proven guilty, as far as I am concerned.

 

He deserted while serving in combat. 70 years ago they would have had him put up against a wall and shot. Spending some time in the brig or stockade is mercy as far as I see. We swore an oath, and it should mean something. If they just let it slide, because they feel sorry for him for getting himself rolled up, then they tell everyone else that it doesn't mean anything.

Just because people were shot for desertion 70 years ago, doesn't make it right. Once again, PMJ, we are likely going to have to agree to disagree because once again, we are diametrically opposed. I am not going to get into one of those long debates with you on this because I can see already neither will convince the other, here. But I will address some of what you said, and maybe that will clarify my position on this for you, and maybe you and I will find some common ground here. One thing I agree on, we shouldn't have traded 5 terrorists for this guy. This only encourages more hostages.

 

I am not saying this guy was a hero at all. He was a victim in my view, and I think he probably was not in his right mind when he walked. It was such an irrational act to just go on walk about in a combat zone.

 

If the guy was in fact suffering from PTSD then deserted, he is not completely at fault for that. A trial is what it will take to determine that, however. If it is the case he had some mental breakdown causing him to do that, then yes, I think general discharge is the way to go. Also, if he was suffering from PTSD or some other mental breakdown, and his leadership failed to identify that, and failed to take appropriate action to remove him from the situation where he could take off like that, then they are just as responsible for what Bergdahl did. More in fact, in my view. It really is no different than the failure at the VA.

 

People in their right mind by definition cannot be held accountable for their actions. Leaving a post like that, in the middle of a combat zone, unarmed, seems a suicidal act to me and is no different than if he had tried to shoot himself or some other form of attempted suicide. This macho crap of "hey suck it up" just simply doesn't work for everybody, and isn't always the answer. Maybe the leadership SHOULD have removed him, and discharged him with a general or bad conduct right then and there, or maybe even put him in the stockade, instead of ignoring the problem. Each individual has their own breaking point and just like physically, some people are emotionally and mentally stronger than others. If this guy legitimately snapped, he shouldn't be vilified. It doesn't serve anything to do that.

 

Now, if he were determined to be in his right mind, sure, hold him accountable. That is a selfish act, that shouldn't stand. Maybe he deserves a dishonorable in that case, depending on the circumstances. A dishonorable discharge pretty much ruins your life. If he was legitimately treasonous, then sure, imprison him. But imprisoning him outside of actually committing treason after he's been a POW? Who and what does that serve except for the bloodthirsty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know what, no. I don't want to hear all kinds of excuses. Why are we making excuses for his conduct? What is he a victim of exactly?

 

I'm not saying that I think he should be shot. I was making a point that spending some time in jail would be a merciful sentence compared to what he could rate for his offense, and it's probably necessary to show everyone in the ranks: deserting your fellow man is a big deal. It is among the gravest of crimes, brother. It's a personal offense. It's not a crime against some piece of paper. It's a crime against your fellow man. It's a crime against every single one who fought. This is combat. People are depending on you. When you walk away, you figuratively kill every one of them. You're telling them, "You really don't matter to me after all," and you're doing it at the moment they need you the most. That's the ultimate betrayal. Personal feelings play no factor in any of it. You have a responsibility to your fellow man. Anything less is a disservice to your fellow man. I don't know any other way to explain it. That's about it. But it is most definitely amongst the gravest of crimes.

 

Now let's just say, for the sake of argument, that he has mental problems. PTSD, more troubling mental illnesses, whatever. Is it leadership's responsibility to recognize it? Yes. Is it a breakdown in leadership and possibly a contributing factor if they do not? Yes. But it is absolutely not an excuse in any way for desertion. It's still his responsibility, and he needs to be held accountable.

 

So if some dude is having marital problems due to alcohol problems, stemming from trouble readjusting to life at home, and he slams into a minivan of four while DUI, it's not his fault? It's all the colonel's fault. He was DUI because his staff sergeant didn't walk him to the chaplain I guess. Should leadership have recognized his problems and aided him in getting the help he so obviously needs? Yes, they have that responsibility. But the entire fault for the incident, PTSD, no PTSD, is his and his alone. He was DUI because he got liquored up and went for a spin. That's why he was DUI.

 

And just because someone suffers from PTSD doesn't mean the individual doesn't understand what the hell he/she is doing or the difference between right and wrong and whether or not certain actions are right or wrong. I've seen my share of PTSD cases, if we want to talk about that. Alcoholism, marital problems, suicidal thoughts and indicators. Seen it all. We had a dude once, awesome guy, good operator (especially when it came to his own specialty). He was about at his threshold. You want to talk about PTSD, this dude was the poster child. We had to sit him down, toward the end of the workup, and tell him that we weren't bringing him to Afghanistan with us, not this time. The team just couldn't use him this time. He needed help badly. The thing that upset him most is that he wouldn't be there. And I have no doubts that he would have made the ride to the end with us, but he was too damaged. But he wouldn't have deserted. I'll guarentee you that. There have been so many cases of troops with PTSD (That's not something new), who didn't desert, especially not in combat. They stood their ground. So how is this somehow different? Why does he get to use that as an excuse, assuming that's even the case? Let's say he was suffering from PTSD, and the command didn't do its job and recognize it. He gets a pass for that? Well, there have been some cases, here and there, where dudes suffering from PTSD have gotten out and committed crimes, and they still went to jail. What's different here?

 

We need to stop making excuses for people. If he needs help, then he needs help. That's fine. And I'm sure that there is going to be an investigation into the conduct of the entire command, as it was in that time period, to see what the hell happened. And there should be. If this could have been prevented by command influence, and they missed that opportunity due to incompetence or indifference (or both), then they should be held accountable for that. But it's not an excuse for desertion. That lies with him, and he needs to be accountable for that. It has to be that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

Y'know what, no. I don't want to hear all kinds of excuses. Why are we making excuses for his conduct? What is he a victim of exactly?

Y'know what, yes. I want to know why he did what he did. If he was mentally unstable, I want things like this recognized in the future and leadership trained to take care of it before it becomes a problem. If he was just some goldbricker who had a tantrum and wondered off and got captured, then different story. Put him on trial and court martial his ass. I really don't think you and I disagree all that much and we are arguing on semantics.

 

Why do I call him victim, if he suffered from PTSD? Well, I don't know what else to call him. What else would he be? If his conduct is a result in a mental breakdown, he's a victim in the sense he suffered a mental illness, and he is a victim in the sense he was captured and held hostage. I use the term victim, so as to differentiate him from HERO, because in my view, he isn't a hero or did anything heroic, and not to confuse him with someone who did. Understand?

 

Attempting to ascertain whether he did suffer from PTSD and wasn't in his right mind or not is NOT an excuse, but to bring attention to the situation. If he was suffering from PTSD, and leadership FAILED to ID it, then this is something that needs to be identified. Since this Bergdahl did go AWOL, and people died looking for him, the leadership need to understand how to recognize this problem, so as to keep it from happening in the future. That is why it is important.

 

Now, if he is guilty of simply going AWOL, and WAS in his right mind, and got captured as a result, then I largely agree with you. He should be dishonorably discharge. Where I disgree with you is how he should be punished. I see no reason to lock him up in Leavenworth at this point. I see no reason to brand a C on his forehead like the 7th Cavalry in the 19th century. Like I said, a dishonorable discharge is basically going to ruin his professional life. His personal life is already destroyed, having been a POW for 5 years, and if he is guilty, he will be shunned the rest of his life. Plus, he would have to live with the fact he is partially responsible for the soldiers who died looking for him (but I still maintain that is largely the fault of the Taliban). I think that is punishment enough, so unless he actually is guilty of out and out treason, then sending him to Leavenworth is pointless.

 

But holding a guy responsible for something when he has a mental breakdown and wonders off then gets captured, serves nothing. Understanding how to prevent that in the future does. Being in a combat zone is not a natural situation for people, and some are going to cut it, others won't. You must remove those who won't. If that means get them mental help and return them to duty when they are better, then fine. If that means discharging them even if they are in a combat zone, then fine. Either way, the risk of someone being held captive like that is reduced. Keeping someone unstable around in a combat zone and ignoring them or screaming "suck it up" in their face 27/7 is setting that unit up for failure, because sooner or later, you have people snap and do like Bergdahl did, what Bales did in Kandahar, or what Asan Akbar did in Iraq, back in 2003. Soldiers have enough to worry about with the enemy and being in combat, without having to worry unstable team members.

 

And that is where my concern is coming from, and desire to find out what happened with Bergdahl, PMJ. Not to be a bleeding heart and label this Bergdahl and all vets victims because I am some peace nick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but see, I'm not saying that the details shouldn't be investigated. I don't know where you're getting that. I made that clear. I'm saying that it's no excuse.

 

You're arguing that PTSD is an excuse to relieve him of jail time, that it somehow makes the offense less severe or something, and I'm saying it doesn't. You're saying that if PTSD is a contributing factor, and that his command didn't pounce on it while conducting continuous combat operations (which his defense will without a doubt argue), then he somehow rates a more lenient penalty. I countered, explaining that there is an overwhelming number of combat veterans who suffer from this condition who did not desert, and that there are vets suffering from PTSD who committed other crimes and were still sent to prison. You're claiming that he's a victim of the Taliban or his own command or someone, and I'm saying he got rolled up on his own accord. People still need to be held accountable for their own actions, regardless of the details (refer to the DUI example).

 

I'm saying that everything does need to be investigated, and if it's found that there were command faults, they need to be dealt with. But I'm also saying that if this is true (and I say that only out of respect to due process, because... well...), then he needs to be court-martialed anyway. Regardless of any "excuses," if it's found that he is in fact a deserter, then he needs to be court-martialed, dishonorably discharged, and placed in jail for a time. It has to be that way.

 

If you want to know the truth, deep down somewhere, I actually feel for him. I really do. I don't know him, but from everything gathered, he seems kinda weird, a little off maybe, probably not the brightest bulb. But his former comrades seem to agree that he wasn't a bad soldier before this whole thing went down, just a little strange at times. I'm willing to bet that he regretted his desertion the moment that he got rolled up. It probably took about a quarter of a second for him to realize what a bad decision he just made. And then he spent five years as a captive. I really feel for his family in all this. But nevertheless, my feelings -- anyone's feelings -- relieve him of nothing. There are obligations, and those obligations trump any and all feelings. Everything that transpired from that -- everything outlined above, everything not outlined above, so much that has yet to be seen (who knows what will come from the deal we were forced to make) -- was a result, directly or indirectly, of his act.

 

If they want to find out all the details, great. They need to find out all the details. That's how you run a good investigation. But he still needs to be held accountable. There's no, "Well, you got yourself rolled up, so we'll just call it even." No. Getting rolled up was his own fault. He still needs to be held accountable to the law and to his fellow men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I like this because we have two vets. Both are making similar, but diverging opinions in some respects. And as a result, I can actually respect and get on board with EACH opinion. I'm not sure that I have a decided "correct" response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just gonna chime in and say one persons PTSD is not the same as another persons PTSD. You can have it to different degrees of severity too, all tailored to the individual and his/her experiences. You can't classify mental trauma under one label and expect it to be the same condition (like a sprained ankle for the mind) for everyone. So to say that others with PTSD didn't desert, whilst a true statement, is kind of a moot point. So what? That doesn't diminish his PTSD or mental imbalance, cause everyone's mind works different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

 

You're arguing that PTSD is an excuse to relieve him of jail time, that it somehow makes the offense less severe or something, and I'm saying it doesn't. You're saying that if PTSD is a contributing factor, and that his command didn't pounce on it while conducting continuous combat operations (which his defense will without a doubt argue), then he somehow rates a more lenient penalty.

 

That is exactly right. I see no reason for jail time, if it is proven he had PTSD. I do not think that after spending 5 years as a POW, the punishment would fit the crime, if he were sent off for yet more jail time. That is piling on, at that point. The guy is most likely a basket case at this point. I am sure the minute he was captured, he knew he f*cked up, and had paid for it every day in the last 5 years, since. I think it very likely he even may be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome as well. At some point, you have to ask, when is enough, enough? That is why if it is proven he had PTSD at that time, I am alright with him being let out on a general discharge, no benefits except enough to get him some kind of mental, and if necessary, physical treatment at the VA, until he can afford something on his own.

Now if it were proven he didn’t have PTSD and just took off, or even worse, committed treason, then to me, very different story. If he had deserted his post and was in his right mind, I would agree with a bad conduct to dishonorable discharge. No jail time, though. But if he actively collaborated, it’s a different story. Jail time is appropriate.

 

I countered, explaining that there is an overwhelming number of combat veterans who suffer from this condition who did not desert, and that there are vets suffering from PTSD who committed other crimes and were still sent to prison. You're claiming that he's a victim of the Taliban or his own command or someone, and I'm saying he got rolled up on his own accord. People still need to be held accountable for their own actions, regardless of the details (refer to the DUI example).

I'm saying that everything does need to be investigated, and if it's found that there were command faults, they need to be dealt with. But I'm also saying that if this is true (and I say that only out of respect to due process, because... well...), then he needs to be court-martialed anyway. Regardless of any "excuses," if it's found that he is in fact a deserter, then he needs to be court-martialed, dishonorably discharged, and placed in jail for a time. It has to be that way.

 

 

 

And as I explained, desertion is nowhere near murder, at least in my mind. You seem to have this heavy handed approach that can be summed up like this “He deserted, I don’t care why, he needs to do jail time,” and you have failed to provide a good reason, at least in my opinion, that someone who may have been in section 8 territory should do jail time simply for desertion. To me, what Bergdahl did is indicative of someone who is irrational and not sane. It was a suicidal act, and such an act, as far as I am concerned, doesn’t warrant jail time. Maybe he should be held accountable despite any possible PTSD, or other mental illness he may have had, but why jail time? He didn’t throw a hand grenade in his company commanders’ tent. He didn’t shoot a bunch of Afghani Children.

The whole reason we have trials at all is because each crime must be considered individually. You can’t just lump this guy in with other vets who committed murder or other despicable acts and say rules are rules, and they all must go to jail.

 

 

 

If you want to know the truth, deep down somewhere, I actually feel for him. I really do. I don't know him, but from everything gathered, he seems kinda weird, a little off maybe, probably not the brightest bulb. But his former comrades seem to agree that he wasn't a bad soldier before this whole thing went down, just a little strange at times. I'm willing to bet that he regretted his desertion the moment that he got rolled up. It probably took about a quarter of a second for him to realize what a bad decision he just made. And then he spent five years as a captive. I really feel for his family in all this. But nevertheless, my feelings -- anyone's feelings -- relieve him of nothing. There are obligations, and those obligations trump any and all feelings. Everything that transpired from that -- everything outlined above, everything not outlined above, so much that has yet to be seen (who knows what will come from the deal we were forced to make) -- was a result, directly or indirectly, of his act.

 

If they want to find out all the details, great. They need to find out all the details. That's how you run a good investigation. But he still needs to be held accountable. There's no, "Well, you got yourself rolled up, so we'll just call it even." No. Getting rolled up was his own fault. He still needs to be held accountable to the law and to his fellow men.

 

 

You know, I might feel differently if the guy hadn’t been a POW for 5 years. Let’s say he was recovered somehow mere weeks after he was captured. Then, I would feel like “OK, this guy should be held accountable to the fullest extent.” He should pay consequences. And if he was an actual traitor, he should even face the death penalty.

 

But it didn't play out that way. What the Taliban did to him is far, far worse than anything the US Army would have done, and he paid for 5 years. I am willing to grant this guy a degree of mercy because he was a POW so long. I think whatever wrong he did, PTSD or just wandering off, he more than paid for it. And he will continue to pay for it the rest of his life. So, to me, jail time, just seems inappropriate in this case, unless treason is involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.