I hate bandwagon-ing but I’ve got to jump in on this Burgdahl story. First, there is always more to the story that we will probably never hear. BUT, what we do hear is a lot of reports, including many from guys that served with him and a reporter that was embedded in his unit when he went “missing,” that all say it was a planned desertion. Basically, they say he was unstable at best and a traitor at worst. Follow up evidence supports this over some theory that he was captured while out on a mission like a real POW. Either way, first and foremost, I have an issue with the seemingly unilateral decision to break our long standing tradition in that we do not negotiate with terrorists.
The President came out with his own statement reinforcing the act by saying that our military has a long standing tradition of never leaving a man behind. Here is where I take an admitting biased, gun toting, bible hugging stance. Our military has that tradition, you don’t. You never were in our military. Its the same issue I have in that a man who has never been in charge of a business or had a successful run as a leader of anything like a town or a state, that man (or woman) should never be considered to be qualified to be in a higher office, let alone the highest office. A man who never was in the military should not be the Commander and Chief of the military… in my opinion. Biased maybe, but I think it makes enough sense that the topic is worthy of debate.
The military has come out with their own statement in that they are investigating Bergdahl’s disappearance now that he has been released. Which, IMO they already know the circumstances of his absence, whatever those may be. This all adds up in my mind that the Military is now very publicly giving the President the middle finger for his actions and statements.
Moving forward though onto the prisoner trade, my friend over on the Liberty Infringed blog (http://libertyinfringed.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/bowe-burgdahl/) has brought up an interesting point of these five men who were detained. He speaks from the point of view that they were never charged and as such, it is a precedence for the government to hold anyone against their Constitutionally guaranteed rights, ie, they can detain and hold indefinitely citizens of the US without due process.
This is a hard stance to take when it is terrorists we are talking about here, but the right one when looking towards the future of our own country and if we still want to be a good moral example for the world. So really, all he’s saying is that if they are so bad, then try them, and if they are found guilty, convict them… or release them.
Honestly though, my question is, if the five people we released were of no threat…then why were they detained in the first place? They were detained, which means they were a threat… and now we are releasing them. Yeah, I’m sure their hate for our ways didn’t just grow less over the time they were imprisoned by us.
We have yet again emboldened terrorists to continue their ways and made to look weak in the eyes of the world.
Bergdahl himself, well that dude is in for a world of trouble. If he is indeed the traitor that popular opinion (79% from the msn poll I saw this morning) says he is, he is going to get his, one way or the other. Dude is from back woods Idaho. There is a little bit of the good-ole-boy mindset that still lives on in some areas of the country and some of those good-ole-boys served in the armed forces. They also know how to light a house on fire that has been doused in gasoline if they think a traitor that is getting away clean and free and is currently asleep inside.
I predict if Bergdahl roams free, he will either leave the US, or stay here as a mouthpiece of whatever it was that made him speak out against the US and our military involvement in the middle east in the first place. Like I said, I don’t think it will end well for him.