The Bergdahl Affair

For John, BLUF:  It is a sticky mess and the sooner we wash our hands of it the better.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to serve no prison time for desertion

Looking at the case of US Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, there are five issues to consider, seven actually:

1. Was his sentence within the Law (Universal Code of Military Justice or UCMJ)?
2. Did it provide proper retribution for his offense and its consequences?
3. Will it serve as a deterrent to future such actions?
4. Why was he getting promoted during his time away from the FOB, and accumulating pay?
5. What was the responsibility of the Army itself for enlisted and deploying Sergeant Bergdahl?
6. Did President Trump's comments with regard to what should happen to Sergeant Bergdahl represent "command influence" or is he sufficiently removed that it wasn't a factor?
7. Was President Obama ill advised with regard to the prisoner swap which brought Sergeant Bergdahl back to US control and the subsequent welcoming activities?

Regarding the FIRST item, my reading tells me it was within the law. And, because it includes a Dishonorable Discharge, it will be automatically appealed and could go to the US Supreme Court, although someone commented that only four courts martial had been appealed that far and taken.

As to the SECOND point, only those who went to look for him and those who suffered wounds or were family of those who suffered wounds, or died in the effort, can answer that.  I am not big on vengeance as a reason for punishment.  With vengeance it becomes about us and not about the offender.

The THIRD point is important, because engaging in combat requires discipline, including the self-discipline to deploy forward and engage the enemy.  This can be very frightening and those who follow Sergeant Bergdahl should be aware of the fact that he did not get off lightly for his actions while deployed to Afghanistan.

The FOURTH point hangs on how Sergeant Bergdahl's status was reported.  He has been treated as a POW, a Prisoner of War, by the US Government, which means he continues to be promoted and his back pay is kept for him.  As a matter of international law he is not really a POW, because the people holding him captive, the Haqqani network (HQN) isn't a government, but a terrorist organization.  They are part of the Taliban, which do see themselves as a government in exile.  However, they are not recognized that way by the broad family of nations.

Regarding the FIFTH point, there is some soul searching amongst active duty and retired military personnel, but the fact is, when the Army needs to recruit more soldiers it lowers its standards.  As one person pointed out, it is the "butcher's bill" of war.  The fact that less than half of young adults meet the fitness standards to join the Armed Forces should give you a hint of the pressure on recruiters, especially if the economy is humming.

As for the SIXTH item, I think if you wish to make a case in court you could, but the reality is that the President is a long ways from a Sergeant on trial.  If the Judge and the members of the Court Martial (in this case the Judge only—smart move on the part of the Defense Counsel) lack the integrity to do their jobs then we are in more serious trouble than I thought.  I think this is a side show.

To the SEVENTH and final item, it seems to me that President Obama was either very poorly advised as to the background of this case or else felt that this was his one avenue to opening dialogue to the Taliban, with an eye on ending this ongoing conflict.  If his foreign policy advisors suggested that, then they were not up to the job and the President was poorly served.  I am not one of those who thinks we should have let him rot in a Haqqani cell, but I believe the celebration for his return was overdone.

Then there is the question of if the verdict, reduction in rank, a $1,000 a month fine while on active duty, and a dishonorable discharge, was in the ballpark.  I say yes it was.  Sergeant Bergdahl needs to be discharged and it should not be an honorable one, since he did not act with honor.  Locking him away would only serve to allow people to call attention to him and to harass the Army.  It would be another Chelsea Manning debacle.  I expect that his struggle to lead a new life will be punishment enough.

For me the sooner we have a Mr Bergdahl, out of the Army and disappearing onto civvie street the better for us all.

Regards  —  Cliff