DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Was the Bowe Bergdahl Trade Worth it?

So... 5 high ranking terrorists for a deserter. MOst of y'all are pretty up to date on current events so I won't bother to post an article unless someone really wants one. But it appears Bergdahl is going to be charged with desertion.

Personally, seeing as there were lives lost in trying to rescue him (there were indicators he deserted back then, but I think the Army was operating under the auspices of 'rescue' vs. going all Dog the Bounty Hunter in a combat zone)... if/when found guilty I think he should be executed. Period.

And we gave up FIVE high ranking terrorists to get him back? Have the Cleveland Browns ever made as terrible a trade??

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of indefinitely detaining these guys. I find it hard to believe that they are still giving up information 5,6,7 and even 10 years later. I'm not sure that they should be brought in to the civil courts, but I think military courts could be handled and provide transparency. Something is better than just holding on to them to trade out for a traitor who has no value.

***AND NOW FOR THE OBLIGATORY OBAMA CRITICISM888

Whether you think he's a Muslim, was a Muslim, is a Christian, or just don't care if he's religious at all, you have to admit sometimes the things he does makes you ask 'Just who's side is he on?' If trading these 5 was the right thing to do, why did he break the law and hide it from Congress? Likely because Congress would have made it known Bergdahl was a deserter and virtually no one would have supported it. Politically he couldn't have pulled it off. So what was his motivation then???

His administration even went so far as to claim that the other soldiers in his platoon were liars and psychopaths because they came out publicly to tell the truth about Bergdahl.

So far they've refused to issue any apology to them or a mea culpa in general.

Obama: Makes a trade for someone who will see some time for deserting. Who knows what the returned insurgents are up to now. Obama will probably send in a drone strike on them...

Dubya: Goes into a war on shoddy intelligence. Throws a broken country into total anarchy costing countless American lives.

Clinton: Takes advantage of an intern.

Bush I: No new taxes

Reagan: The trickle down farce.

Every administration makes a few boneheaded moves. I'm quite sure this is one of those moments.

During wartime deserters used to be shot. This guy was going to be beheaded. He was still an American Soldier. He still had a family here.

Tough, tough , tough call to leave him when we had the opportunity to get him. And who knows the real story? Did we turn any of those we had and traded for? Did we get any intel from him when we got him back? Who knows?

And if you do the math like we did in Iraq, it takes a hundred thousand of them to pay for three thousand of us. So maybe we got the deserter discount only costing us five of them.

Tough, tough, tough call that is NOT the President's call to make.

He excluded the Congress from doing their job (again). Why?

I completely disagree with that statement. He ceased to be an American soldier the second he deserted. From all reports, the base that he was on reported his desertion just an hour or so after he left, and then rescuers were sent out to find him. Four soldiers lost their lives searching for him, and up to 15 could be considered killed while looking for him. He was reported as looking for an interpreter that could direct him to the Taliban. That is more than a deserter, that is a traitor.

Our administration has stated that we do not leave soldiers behind, but was this guy truly a soldier anymore? They also stated he served, "with honor and distinction". Please tell me how? I believe this swap had more to do with obama emptying Gitmo than it did with bringing a deserter home, which is why they attempted to whitewash this deserters story.

Two conflicting rules

1. Leave no man behind

2. Don't negotiate with terrorists

Not sure what I'd do. For better or worse, he's a American Military. He hadn't been found guilty of anything at that point, just suspected.

Tough call.

This entire situation or whatever is the definition of FUBAR. Trying him for desertion is something that should have happened a long time ago. Then again, alot of things should have happened, keyword being "should".

The trade was the only logical thing to do, after all, how can we hang the turd if they have removed his head?

once again, i see the experience( or lack thereof) anybody has overseas.

you guys are getting caught up in the "high ranking" terrorist, like y'all got played with the birth certificate nonsense.

The fact that y'all think 5 other "high ranking" terrorist didn't replace the ones we captured the moment they were gone is mind blowing.

the fact that y'all still think you can fight ideology with soldiers is mind blowing.

Dude was an American soldier. regardless if he deserted or not. on an intelligence stand point ALONE you bring him back and find out what he knows, because on THAT standpoint, he had valuable information we needed.

imma say it again, y'all got played with "high ranking" because what can they tell us that we didn't already know?

y'all think we just let those 5 guys walk without tracking them? without knowing their every step? without WAITING for them to go to the wrong spot so we can drone strike the crap out of them?

Leave the military tactics to the pentagon and administration. just complain about the muslim kenyan socialist like y'all always do.

Why did Obama circumvent Congress in this regard?

why did they write a letter to iran and have that israeli dude come without speaking to obama?

because politics and all of them are snakes.

Stick with the topic...tell me why you think Obama circumvented Congress.

I didn't know the Commander and Chief of the military had to ask Congress for permission to do a prisoner swap?

i did stick to the topic.

and why did he? because he CAN. thats why. if congress or the supreme court didn't like it, they would've made a law about it.

This morning on the today show, it was stated by Mitt Romney that he was supposed to get permission.

But then again, it's Mitt Romney, the same guy that said Obamacare was totally wrong but forgot to mention it was patterned in part from his bill in Ma.

I don't think the president needs *permission* to do that, but he needs to submit some form of acknowledgement indicating his plans which of course he failed to do.

so he can do what he did, he just failed to notify congress.

but he was going to make the trade anyway. and they couldn't stop it.

the world is ending

That doesn't matter at all to me. I'm more angry about the 'honor and distinction' lie put out for the administration by their mouthpiece Susan Rice. It would figure this administration sees desertion that ends up killing fellow soldiers as honor and distinction.

Thank you for answering the question.

anytime bro.

There is a first time for everything.

i always answer straight up.

people on this board just get upset because i do it all the time, and don't like my answers. but i never changed.

No, I'm quite sure those 5 were replaced... and now we've given them 5 back which means.. 5+5= 10...

I also wrote that there should have been done something with them already vs. releasing or just letting them rot there.

You could be right, maybe they did turn these guys, maybe not. And actually no, with the way this admin has viewed the war on terrorism, I don't think they are accurately tracking them. Besides, even if they were tracking them to eventually drone strike them, I'm not a fan of all the civilians that would be killed as well...

And I get you want to get Bergdahl back for Intel purposes.. but how far do you go? Would you "torture" him? Waterboard etc??? COULD you? After all, he's an American citizen. Legally he doesn't have to say anything.

But for arguments sake I'll say you are completely right on all these points: it still doesn't address the concern I share with Erik about the Admin going out and proclaiming that Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction"... furthermore they tried to trash the soldiers he deserted from when they came forward about the truth. Getting Bergdahl back was a purely political move that Obama thought would be a quick and easy feather in his cap. He tried to play on the nation's patriotism and thought that people would be so happy to get one of our own boys back that they wouldn't be too bothered by what he gave up in trade. What they didn't expect is that the other soldiers would speak out like they did.

Oh, and I learned recently that Desertion only carries up to a 5 year sentence ... its the becoming a terrorist charge that carries the possible life sentence.

i don't agree with obama on that. it's pretty clear the guy didn't serve with any honor whatsoever. and he didn't deserve to be brought back, after six actualy hero's went looking for him when he went missing.

people need to remember that because he actually tried to help terrorist, those Arab insurgents viewed him as an actual necessity, because he would've been able to enter america, or return the the Army with zero problems. Thats why i say he was vital to intelligence, as they would've indulged more information to him, compared to a typical Arab who would've had to jump through the hoops to obtain even a Visa to enter the US. So from an intelligence standpoint, he needed to be brought back.

Remember Devil, Terrorism in the middle east isn't so much tactical as it is simple propaganda. Look at your profession for example. the facts don't matter so much as the appearance of wrong doing and righteousness.

Of the many, many sleezy things Obama has pulled this was one of the sleaziest.

The question would then be, were any DoD funds used in the transfer? That provision is all about money, not procedures.