Sergeant Bergdahl Released for 5 Taliban members

[Gaidin]

Well the thing is, the Taliban isn't exactly a monolithic organization. It's a number of different smaller organizations and tribes. There are some that might be out for total blood and something like this exchange would never happen. But then there are some where under the right conditions that exchange might happen, but under the wrong conditions, bullets fly. Who knows.

[fkizz]

Maybe said sergent had a strong belief in his anti afghan war rant, however, at the end of the day, what he did was basically risk his comrades death, ending up causing 5 dead in search for him, and getting a few hardened taliban back home. This is a disaster.

If he wanted to do some peace and harmony work rather than soldier, he could've looked for connections or means for it, that didn't involve risking his comrades. There were ways for him to seek some alternative branch of military more adapted to his personality, and who knows, he could've ended up doing something good for himself and his division.

Risking your comrades life for a such selfish action is not justified, no matter if your anti war rant is well or badly written. Or maybe he simply went bonkers and started acting stupid out of brain wires not going right.

I'm hoping that he had some type of important info that somehow justified such an operation to get him back, because I don't want to think that Obama is such a bad decision maker.

[Stavroforos]

Yes, such a bad decision to leave Americans in the hands of the Taliban.

[Col. Tartleton]

Let him live with his decision to go native... I mean get captured and held comfortably for five years.

I mean if we hadn't traded 5 Taliban leaders for him I'd be like "well obviously we don't know the full circumstances around his capture so we have to get him back and sort it out after." That would be reasonable if we traded one Taliban leader or a handful of people we knew were small fish, but five big fish essentially up front for a guy who may well have been a deserter if not a traitor is pretty risky. I mean we let them choose their five people? What the hell? Half of them are wanted for war crimes. That'd be like the Taliban trading us George Bush for Ahmed from Peshawar.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Yes, such a bad decision to leave Americans in the hands of the Taliban.

1 for 5 is a raw deal, 5 for 1 guy who doesn't even like his country is a rawer deal. It pours salt into the wound when you consider all the other Americans held captive whose families have to wonder why they weren't "important enough". It really is a bad decision.

[Ima Farmathar]

As much as I dislike Obama's tyrannical government, I find it hard to believe that it’s so incompetent that they would exchange 5 big shots for a traitor.
This is what I thin happened, the guy was a double agent, let’s remember that this dude got several promotions while in captivity. he went over to the Taliban, to prove his worth he set up the ambush for the other 5-6 dudes, collateral and all. When it was time to retrieve him, either because he got caught or because his time was up, the POTUS did so without notifying congress because its secret stuff. On the other hand the 5 Taliban are already tortured, drained from information and spent. Sure the Afghan government loses leverage in future negotiations, but the US Gains valuable intelligence, and that is ultimately more important.

I know its speculation, but so far it all is. What is more reasonable to assume complete incompetence of the most powerful organization on earth or to think that they might know what they are doing?

Regarding the marine arrested in Mexico, He was smuggling weapons, breaking Mexican law in México, that he is an agent of a foreign government is unimportant, especially since Both governments are on good terms. It’s not like the united states doesn’t incarcerate/execute Mexicans committing crimes in their soil.

[Stavroforos]

1 for 5 is a raw deal, 5 for 1 guy who doesn't even like his country is a rawer deal. It pours salt into the wound when you consider all the other Americans held captive whose families have to wonder why they weren't "important enough". It really is a bad decision.

I don't think it's a poor decision, just an underwhelming decision. Whatever the man was and whatever he did, any responsible president would have tried to secure his release. Perhaps the price paid for that was too great, but in the end it's not something wrong.

[Condottiere 40K]

Personally, I think it's a bad deal, but Obama made it, and he must have thought that something made it worthwhile.

[Gaidin]

As much as I dislike Obama's tyrannical government, I find it hard to believe that it’s so incompetent that they would exchange 5 big shots for a traitor.
This is what I thin happened, the guy was a double agent, let’s remember that this dude got several promotions while in captivity. he went over to the Taliban, to prove his worth he set up the ambush for the other 5-6 dudes, collateral and all. When it was time to retrieve him, either because he got caught or because his time was up, the POTUS did so without notifying congress because its secret stuff. On the other hand the 5 Taliban are already tortured, drained from information and spent. Sure the Afghan government loses leverage in future negotiations, but the US Gains valuable intelligence, and that is ultimately more important.

Them's some crazy speculative claims. What's your evidence he was a double agent?

I don't think it's a poor decision, just an underwhelming decision. Whatever the man was and whatever he did, any responsible president would have tried to secure his release. Perhaps the price paid for that was too great, but in the end it's not something wrong.

Personally, I think it's a bad deal, but Obama made it, and he must have thought that something made it worthwhile.

It frankly doesn't matter what the price paid for it was, as the Taliban prisoners were going to be released at the end of conflict anyway. His condition was such that he wasn't going to survive until the end of conflict. Thus the negotiations for him to be released before the end of conflict. Thus a price was going to be paid. There were actually negotiations for him in 2010-2011 that stalled, but nobody in this thread seems to remember them.

[Exarch]

sounds like it was a really bad decision that the President an his cabinet have no option but to stick to it and pretend it was done for the humanitarian reasons rather than the political one.
It's a bad decision when you consider that both Obama and Susan Rice had said Bergdahl had 'served with honour' before the media brou-ha-ha over his desertion

[conon394]

Personally, I think it's a bad deal, but Obama made it, and he must have thought that something made it worthwhile.

Why a bad deal? The war is over we are pulling out. Politically is always a loose loose choice for Obama - the other side has been hammering him for not making one until he and now Its awful. Nothing is stopping the Military from investigating him. And overall no bits and bobs of the A-stan war will be over before the democrat has to face an election for president. Plus as Gaidian said the Talban were always going to released and this has been in the works for almost 2 years with the same names and number of men and some kind of time out in the gulf for the Taliban people

[GreyFox]

What the hell? Half of them are wanted for war crimes.

Then why the hell hadn't you guys put them on trial? You've held them for years.

[conon394]

Then why the hell hadn't you guys put them on trial? You've held them for years.

Becuse the legality is to complex. The US did not declare a real war nor I think accept in the past the Taliban Government but it did sort of - so they are sort of POW's from a defeated government or not or maybe. In addition I doubt the current administration wants to delve into the maybe sort of torture they may have experienced in a federal court under the previous administration. As such a 1 year holiday in Qatar keeps them out A-stan until we leave more or less. Also it get the the Administration one step closer to getting rid of Gitmo. Not as easy as it seemed on campine trail but I think in a second term Obama is trying to clean the slate for the next D canaidate

Besides Obama has made it rather clear he prefers to use drones - if they show up in Yemen or Mali or A-stan they better keep watching the sky

[GreyFox]

Becuse the legality is to complex. The US did not declare a real war nor I think accept in the past the Taliban Government but it did sort of - so they are sort of POW's from a defeated government or not or maybe. In addition I doubt the current administration wants to delve into the maybe sort of torture they may have experienced in a federal court under the previous administration. As such a 1 year holiday in Qatar keeps them out A-stan until we leave more or less. Also it get the the Administration one step closer to getting rid of Gitmo. Not as easy as it seemed on campine trail but I think in a second term Obama is trying to clean the slate for the next D canaidate

Besides Obama has made it rather clear he prefers to use drones - if they show up in Yemen or Mali or A-stan they better keep watching the sky

My point was that it is ridiculous to complain about how they are wanted war criminals and shouldn't have been released and yet, when the US government held them for years, they would not put them on trial for their alleged crimes.

[Condottiere 40K]

Probably this was realized from the beginning, which was why they shipped to Guantanamo, where they existed in a legal limbo.

[Simon Cashmere]

He wasnt captured by the 'Taliban' - he was captured by the Haqqani Network. The Haqqani Network, when it captures anyone, is all about money. They want money to let people go. They couldn't give a monkey's about 5 Taliban commanders being let go - UNLESS they were given money. And I bet there is money at the bottom of this, whether the US government paid, or Qatar or Saudi Arabia paid on America's behalf. It may have been that they were going to let these guys go anyway, and it provided a convenient cover story. But saying that the Haqqani Network let go their prize captive because Taliban commanders were released, makes no sense at all.

In addition, the New York Post is reporting that Qatar has been giving Stinger missiles to the Taliban. Outstanding. What could possibly go wrong?

My sources in the US Special Operations community believe the Stinger fired against the Chinook was part of the same lot the CIA turned over to the *Qataris in early 2011, weapons Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department intended for anti-Khadafy forces in Libya.

http://nypost.com/2014/06/08/how-the...n-us-missiles/

A US forces Chinook was hit by a Stinger, and it seems to have shrugged it off. Stingers are made to take out planes, so a massive helicopter is better able to take a hit from one I suppose.

That would be in addition to all the Grinch missiles floating around the Middle East after the Gaddafi, Assad and Iraqi stockpiles were raided.

[tarvu]

1 for 5 is a raw deal, 5 for 1 guy who doesn't even like his country is a rawer deal. It pours salt into the wound when you consider all the other Americans held captive whose families have to wonder why they weren't "important enough". It really is a bad decision.

I assume you mean these:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/05/world/...ned-americans/

They are not soldiers but civilians (and some likely CIA operatives), Bergdahl was the only soldier currently being held captive. That, and the fact that his health was failing is why he was traded for five prisoners, among the dozens of high profile Taliban prisoners we hold.

If, most likely for political reasons, people want to argue that he should have been left to die in Taliban captivity because he is a traitorous coward that is fine.

Obviously in reality what happened is that Obama negotiated to get our last prisoner of war out of Afghanistan prior to us (almost) leaving the country. As for them "picking" well that isn't really accurate since obviously many detainees were not even on the table. All of those exchanged had been prisoners for 12-13 years and have been offered as candidates for transfer for years. We likely got all the intelligence we could from them, and aside from ridiculous claims from a few cantankerous senators I hardly think they are super villains.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/31/us/ber...rticle_sidebar

Should they be in prison for what they have done? Yes, but that would require them being actually tried for their crimes. Something that wasn't happening on any time table.

Rather than about one of their own coming home because he "doesn't deserve it" I would think our veterans would be grateful that we are leaving our longest running war with no prisoners of war still over there. Something we have not always accomplished in the past (under their glorious pro-military Republican presidents).

[Gaidin]

1 for 5 is a raw deal, 5 for 1 guy who doesn't even like his country is a rawer deal. It pours salt into the wound when you consider all the other Americans held captive whose families have to wonder why they weren't "important enough". It really is a bad decision.

What's hilarious is that you think it matters at all. One of the biggest fundamental points the Secretary of Defense made in testimony before congress is that a soldier's conduct before capture, and whether they recover the soldier are two fundamentally separate and distinct issues. Put succinctly, no matter the conduct of the soldier, they were getting him back, to hell with what you think.

[kanecaston]

the maybe sort of torture they may have experienced

Dry boarding of which three detainees have actually died of in Guantanamo alone involves stuffing the victims airways with dry rag and then taping his nose shut.

That is torture.

Not only is torture horrific and these people that performed it and authorized it are war criminals who deserve to hang, Obama included, but torture never provides useful information.

[Condottiere 40K]

It's a poisoned well, but the Dauer Doctrine shows that it can be used in extremis, when time is a factor.