Sergeant Bergdahl

In the world of politics, Sergeant Bergdahl’s release has become the right-wing’s latest red herring. With a son who was a former army ranger that served in Afghanistan, I asked him how he felt about the release of Bergdahl. Unequivocally, he said, “We leave no one behind.” There were no if or buts in his statement.

We went on to discuss other issues with the release. What if he was a deserter? Or a douche-bag? He told me that none of that mattered. He was an Army soldier and we, as a country, needed to do whatever was necessary to bring him home. All the other issues were subterfuge.

He let me know that there were men in his unit that were left stateside when he deployed to Afghanistan because they were deemed to be unfit or were seen as a detriment to the unit in a combat zone. If Sergeant Bergdahl was seen as such a bad soldier, why was he in Afghanistan? Who did not do the proper vetting prior to his deployment? Was it his direct commander? The head of his unit? As I understand it, there are channels to take care of problems like this.

Once in country, why did no one take the steps needed to prevent Sergeant Bergdahl from walking off his post? Were there no signs that problems were on the horizon? Someone needs to get to the bottom of that question. Did his aberrant behavior pop up out of nowhere? Where is the written documentation to back up the claims in his unit? Or, was it a sergeant or lieutenant or captain or someone even higher in the chain of command that dropped the ball and didn’t address the problem of Sergeant Bergdahl?

I am dumbfounded by the way others in his unit talk about Sergeant Bergdahl.  Where is their responsibility in all this? Why did they not take action to see that this young man was pulled back? This issue goes much deeper than anyone seems to be looking? However, it is much easier to blame Sargent Bergdahl than see where the system failed.

Many of the men that have spoken out against Sergeant Bergdahl said that they signed essentially gag orders. Why? What is the Army trying to cover-up? Why is Sergeant Bergdahl being made the scapegoat? He is at fault for walking off his post, but there is a hell of a lot not being talked about as it relates to this case.

But for right-wing pundit and politicians, it is easier to point fingers than to search for the truth. In this they can try to gain political points in lieu of seeking the truth behind the story. Six servicemen dead in the hunt for him makes for great headlines. Unlike Army drop the ball and knew Sergeant Bergdahl mental state was deteriorating, but left him in the rotation.

In the world of right-wing punditry, he is a coward, deserter; a man who so shamed the uniform he wore that we should have left him behind to rot for the rest of his life. These talkers have become judge, jury and executioner. Where is their honor? They have none. But it does not stop there.

They are incensed that five Taliban leaders were released. Were we to imprison them in perpetuity? Exactly how are they going to harm Americans? They are not going to harm anyone in this country. In fact, they may lead us to people serving in al-Qaida. Once out of Qatar, they may rejoin the fight to retake control of Afghanistan, but they are never going to be a threat to us here in America. This fear-mongering is a stratagem to gain political points as to who is best at protecting us from our enemies and their answers remain the Republicans.

These five men in no way will do anything outside of Afghanistan, but they can lead us to people that want to do us harm here and across the world. When President Obama says that we have eyes on these five men, he means that we have their DNA, voice recognition, finger prints, and facial recognition. They can go nowhere without us. The hope being that people in al-Qaida will want to interview them and we will gain new information.

 

Why they will never harm us is the fact that these five men will never be accepted into al-Qaida because they do not in any way have the skill sets that al Qaida requires such as language skills, computer skills, and financial skills to name a few, everything that is needed to operate outside of Afghanistan.

Finally, this exchange was a smart move because it saved an American life. It is not the first nor will it be the last time that America negotiates with terrorists. Lest we forget that Ronald Reagan negotiated with Iranian terrorists to bring home hostages in 1980, and in that case, he traded arms for Americans. When a Republican negotiates with the enemy, then, he is a hero, end of story.

 

Welcome home Sergeant Bergdahl. You have come back to a place where many on the right want to make an example of you. It seems as if we have learned nothing from Vietnam. Political gamesmanship is much more important than saving an American soldier even if it is from himself.