More on Sergeant Bergdahl

For John, BLUF:  Our ethos is to bring everyone home, if we can.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I am thinking about giving the Bergdahl imbroglio its own tag, but I am resisting because I think it is a tempest in a tea pot.  Getting him back was important, but his status (AWOL, Deserter, DUSTUN, etc) isn't worth the bandwidth expended on it. That said, it is out there.  Here is Boston University Professor and former Army Colonel Andrew Basevich on the issue.  In condemning the public discussion as being political, he introduces politics into his writing.  And Presidential illegality.  But, mainly it is an anti-Bush, anti-Republican, screed.

Contra Mssr Basevich, even some Democrats are concerned about the Bergdahl prisoner swap.  Former Democrat Congressman, former White House Chief of Staff, former CIA Director, former SecDef Leon Pennata was quoted in the Pittsburg Tribune on 4 June as saying he questioned the release of the five Taliban prisoners from GITMO.  He also used the phrase "I have an obligation under the law."  How quaint.

Frankly, the best item I have seen so far is from retired Air Force two star Charlie Dunlap, now Executive Director of Duke Law School’s Center on Law, Ethics and National Security..  Under the title "Leave no soldier behind – no exceptions", the author reviews the terrain.  And he concludes with the following:

But everyone who wears the uniform deserves to have any accounting done by Americans on American terms.  In fact, accountability in the military is so important that it alone is sufficient cause to aggressively engineer his return. In any event, we don’t punish miscreants by leaving them with the enemy.

Will America’s enemies think Bergdahl’s case is a precedent to exploit? Maybe.  But negotiations and even deal-making are not the only U.S. options: who wants to be on the receiving end of a SEAL team raid?  Viewing the fate of the Somali hostage-takers in the film Captain Phillips might educate any doubters.

Regardless, commitments matter.  When we send our troops in harm’s way for any purpose they have to be confident that their country will try to get them home.

Yes, a real price might be paid for Bergdahl’s release; upholding values is not cheap.  Yet as Americans we simply cannot toss aside the cherished military ethos of leaving no one behind.

How this exchange was handled may be justifiably questionable, but why it was done is not.

Don't mistake my understanding of the commitment.  We are not getting back every person, every body.  My wife's late husband is at the bottom of the Pacific.  Thousands of feet down.  He joins thousands of other US Airmen, from WWI on, who are missing and presumed dead.  And that presumption is pretty well grounded.  However, when we have a shot at bringing someone home, we take it.  It is about loyalty.

Regards  —  Cliff