“Put deeper thought into it.”
That was the response someone pretty smart told me after I shared my initial thoughts on the United States’ decision to exchange five Taliban prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay for one American soldier who many believe voluntarily abandoned his oath to serve when he disappeared from his Army base in 2009.
Several members of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s platoon, including his squad leader have publically stated that the seemingly disenchanted soldier abandoned his weapons and fellow comrades as he walked off post with nothing more than a compass, a knife, a digital camera and a diary.
Consistent with those claims are the findings of an Army investigation completed months after Bergdahl’s disappearance that noted the likelihood Bergdahl left on his own free will.
And then there are the strange messages Bergdahl sent to his parents. As reported in a 2012 Rolling Stone article, Bergdahl wrote, “The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideals that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be an American. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they strive in. It is all revolting.”
He went on to write, “I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.”
Bergdahl’s comments to his parents shouldn’t be ignored. Nor should the perspectives of his fellow soldiers who have risked their careers and reputations to inform the public of Bergdahl’s behavior. Their blatant and courageous efforts to educate this country of such key information should be valued or at the very least, considered.
So when I was told to put “deeper thought” into the debate, I did.
Through my intense pondering I found myself more understanding and sympathetic of the need to rescue Bergdahl, but the five prisoners for one soldier rationale still leaves me scratching my head. It just doesn’t make sense. Nor does the White House’s rationale that the detainees are “gray beards” who aren’t likely to engage in future terrorist acts, or the fact that the prisoners will remain in Qatar for a year with Qatar officials assuring the U.S. the prisoners will not go to the battlefield within that time frame.
In case the U.S. government needs reminding, a year is nothing for dangerous terrorists who may return to the battlefield more strategic and determined than ever a mere 12 months later.
While we may never fully know why the United States agreed to such an uneven exchange ratio, we have to value the life of an American soldier. Doing so sets a precedent and a level of comfort to soldiers themselves as well as their families.
As I discussed Bergdahl’s release with multiple people, some questions arose that changed my thinking.
“What if it was your significant other over there,” I was asked. “What if it was your nephew, your brother, or even your best friend? Would you be willing to ignore their life or would you want the government to do everything in its power to get your loved one home?”
I concluded that American soldiers need to fully trust the government in which they protect, will in turn protect them – regardless of circumstances. However, in the event that a soldier has abandoned his mission and left presumably on his own free will, a thorough investigation/interrogation should be done once that soldier lands on American soil and health officials deem him fit to undergo such intense scrutiny.
Since we do not know the specifics of Bergdahl’s departure from his platoon or even the conditions he was subjected to while being held captive, we should adapt a “wait and see” philosophy that will hopefully lead to the truth. In the meantime, we should not hail Bergdahl a hero, for we know not anything he has done is heroic. We should however deem the six soldiers who were killed looking for Bergdahl heroes. Unfortunately, they are the least discussed in this debacle.
President Obama has been catching hell from Republicans and even select Democrats over the secrecy of the exchange.
According to the 2014 defense bill (which Obama signed), three conditions must be imposed regarding the transfer of detainees: “the defense secretary must certify that it is in the national interest to make the transfer; steps must be taken to reduce the chances a detainee could pose a threat; and Congress must be notified of a planned transfer 30 days in advance.”
The latter has congressional members in an uproar because they were not made aware of the decision to move forward with the transfer although it has been discussed among them for over two years.
Obama said the circumstances required an immediate decision within his authority as commander in chief. As far as complaints of negotiating with terrorists and the likelihood the prisoners will engage in future anti-American attacks, Obama’s response to the criticism was clear and direct.
“We will be keeping eyes on them. I wouldn’t be doing it if I thought it was contrary to American national security.”
Obama was elected the leader of this country so regardless of our personal opinions, we need to trust his decision-making and respect his rationale.
You can email comments to Shannon Williams at shannonw@indyrecorder.com.
