So Now We Negotiate with Terrorists??

[noble cane]

Negotiations with Terrorists..

Just when I think that this administrations foreign policy can't get any more amateur... they go and make every American overseas a potential kidnapping target...





5 Taliban Commanders exchanged for 1 Deserter

 

[aTUfan]

Nice the guy got released but not a good policy.
It make a good headline; that's all Bho cares about

Another example of his weak leadership

 

[rabidTU]

Evidently, the prisoner was pondering desertion according to several of the "real" soldiers assigned to his company. They obviously didn't look at him as one of their "band of brothers". From what I've seen on TV he went to Afghanistan to "help" the Afghans (friend or foe) rather than serve his nation and root out the terrorists which is his mission. If thats true, I wonder if he was just seeking out the Taliban (his nations enemy) and allowing them to use him for their own ends. It is also reported that he had forgotten how to speak English which shows a mindset problem. I know one thing, if these reports are true, (and noone knows at this time for certain), then he was an enemy of his country and especially those "brothers" who I'm sure would save his hide if the opportunity arose regardless of his ideology.

It would be interesting to interview some of the troops who knew him and had discussed his politics. You have to wonder if this wasn't some attempt to give Obama political cover for his West Point speech and the VA scandal. Just sayin!

IMO

 

[aTUfan]

Supposedly we gave up five of the "Worst of the Worst" for him.

Not a good trade.

Good thing BHO isn't a GM for a professional ball team

 

[rabidTU]

In the military, one of a soldiers general orders says that they "will quit their post only when properly relieved". Not following a general order is grounds for a court martial. If any soldier "quits" his post in time of war, that can be construed as desertion. Desertion can, but not often, be an offense that carries the death penalty. In WWI and WWII, the military actually tried, convicted and exectuted members of the US armed forces for that very reason - most notably Pvt Eddie Slovik. Desertion and collaboration with the enemy is supposed to be frowned on - if we are actually at war and since we went to war with the consent of the US congress, violations of the military code should be in effect.

But under Obama, we evidently do not follow the laws of the nation or the military for that matter.

IMO



This post was edited on 6/2 10:21 PM by rabidTU

 

[old_goat_23]

What we know:

1. Guy was a deserter. He left his gear, weapons and military ID and crawled under the wire (literally). We don't know if he actually deserted with the intention to commit treason or if he just wanted to "walk to India".

2. Contrary to Obama's statements, we do not make deals or sacrifice lives to bring home deserters. We have never done this in the history of the US Military. If we happen to get them back, we normally put them on trial and stuff them in a cell. Obama never served and knows nothing about the military. None of his inner circle served or know anything about the military. I can't really fault him for being clueless on this one but maybe a history book or two would be in order?

3. Based on the never ending line of clueless twits paraded in front of the press, State appears to be getting ever more insulated from reality under this administration. They have always been a government unto themselves but for a twenty-something female wearing a dress and pearls to call a bunch of guys who in the unit at the time of the "event" liars is pretty far down the road of self delusion.

4. Bergdahl was not "captured by the Taliban". He either was captured by or defected to the Haqqani Network. The Haqqani Network is a crime syndicate based in Northern Pakistan. They run guns, drugs and have a significant kidnapping for ransom/human slavery presence in the area. While they trade with the Taliban (money and guns for raw heroin), are Muslim and have massive influence with the ISI (Pak intelligence service) via bribery they are neither Taliban nor Al Quaeda. Neither the press or the administration appear to be capable of making the distinction amongst the groups but they are all different with unique agendas.

What we suspect:

1. Most significantly it would appear that this has nothing to do with Bergdahl but is instead the first step in a desperate plan for flushing the detainees and closing the facility at Gitmo. My best guess is that Obama's advisers looked at the Bergdahl situation and thought it would be a way to dump the five worst guys back on the world while counting a political coup for the administration. Whoops.

2. As noted above, the Haqqani could care less about freeing 5 Taliban leaders. They most likely made a deal with the Taliban and our representatives from State in which the Taliban got their guys, the Haqqani got some raw heroin (or influence in the Afghan government after we leave and the Taliban take it back) and State/Obama get the political "win" of freeing a captured soldier (or so they thought).

3. JSOC knew where Bergdahl was and thought about going to get him. However, due to the group holding him and his status as a deserter, they opted to leave him in place. No desire or need to expend assets and lives for a deserter or to kill a bunch of guys who are part of a crime syndicate. (JSOC = Joint Special Operations Command .... this is a group that has units from the Army, Navy and controls the USAF 160th SOAR assets. Each military branch also have their own SpecOps group which are SOCOM for the Army, NAVSOC for the Navy and MARSOC for the USMC. US Army Special Forces Detachment Delta and US Navy DEVGRU are both under JSOC while the rest of the Green Berets and Rangers are under SOCOM .... and the other SEAL Teams are under NAVSOC ...... it gets complicated.)

4. Never underestimate Obama. He may be clueless regarding the larger geopolitical issues but he always has a carefully crafted political agenda. In this case, the agenda is Gitmo. He missed the potential for a domestic backlash but his actual plan was pretty solid. Just a small matter of being confused as to the difference between "deserter" and "prisoner" in the minds of the military.

Thanks!

 

[old_goat_23]

This post was edited on 6/4 8:17 AM by old_goat_23

 

[rabidTU]

Originally posted by old_goat_23:
What we know:

1. Guy was a deserter. He left his gear, weapons and military ID and crawled under the wire (literally). We don't know if he actually deserted with the intention to commit treason or if he just wanted to "walk to India".

2. Contrary to Obama's statements, we do not make deals or sacrifice lives to bring home deserters. We have never done this in the history of the US Military. If we happen to get them back, we normally put them on trial and stuff them in a cell. Obama never served and knows nothing about the military. None of his inner circle served or know anything about the military. I can't really fault him for being clueless on this one but maybe a history book or two would be in order?

3. Based on the never ending line of clueless twits paraded in front of the press, State appears to be getting ever more insulated from reality under this administration. They have always been a government unto themselves but for a twenty-something female wearing a dress and pearls to call a bunch of guys who in the unit at the time of the "event" liars is pretty far down the road of self delusion.

4. Bergdahl was not "captured by the Taliban". He either was captured by or defected to the Haqqani Network. The Haqqani Network is a crime syndicate based in Northern Pakistan. They run guns, drugs and have a significant kidnapping for ransom/human slavery presence in the area. While they trade with the Taliban (money and guns for raw heroin), are Muslim and have massive influence with the ISI (Pak intelligence service) via bribery they are neither Taliban nor Al Quaeda. Neither the press or the administration appear to be capable of making the distinction amongst the groups but they are all different with unique agendas.

What we suspect:

1. Most significantly it would appear that this has nothing to do with Bergdahl but is instead the first step in a desperate plan for flushing the detainees and closing the facility at Gitmo. My best guess is that Obama's advisers looked at the Bergdahl situation and thought it would be a way to dump the five worst guys back on the world while counting a political coup for the administration. Whoops.

2. As noted above, the Haqqani could care less about freeing 5 Taliban leaders. They most likely made a deal with the Taliban and our representatives from State in which the Taliban got their guys, the Haqqani got some raw heroin (or influence in the Afghan government after we leave and the Taliban take it back) and State/Obama get the political "win" of freeing a captured soldier (or so they thought).

3. JSOC knew where Bergdahl was and thought about going to get him. However, due to the group holding him and his status as a deserter, they opted to leave him in place. No desire or need to expend assets and lives for a deserter or to kill a bunch of guys who are part of a crime syndicate. (JSOC = Joint Special Operations Command .... this is a group that has units from the Army, Navy and controls the USAF 160th SOAR assets. Each military branch also have their own SpecOps group which are SOCOM for the Army, NAVSOC for the Navy and MARSOC for the USMC. US Army Special Forces Detachment Delta and US Navy DEVGRU are both under JSOC while the rest of the Green Berets and Rangers are under SOCOM .... and the other SEAL Teams are under NAVSOC ...... it gets complicated.)

4. Never underestimate Obama. He may be clueless regarding the larger geopolitical issues but he always has a carefully crafted political agenda. In this case, the agenda is Gitmo. He missed the potential for a domestic backlash but his actual plan was pretty solid. Just a small matter of being confused as to the difference between "deserter" and "prisoner" in the minds of the military.

Thanks!

Old Goat, you know your stuff!

Now the videos of the soldier have come out and show a healthy person being sent home. Not a man that was on the verge of death as the adm implied (again Susan Rice). So if he wasn't captured, wasn't in poor health, but was pretty much castigated by his unit - virtually all them; then why the "Rose Garden" Obama event? Anyone think BHO will come out and take back this nonsense?

Oh, his ballet partner did like him though!

 

[TUMe]

Bergdahl served with honor and distinction. Check.

Bergdahl was near death and had to be removed. Check

The Emir of Qatar will keep an eye on these people who were released. Check

The State Department spokesman knows more about Bergdahl than the soldiers who trained, lived, and served with him. Check.

We always get our prisoners back at the end of a war and the war in Afghanistan is over. Check

 

[ORUalum]

Whoever advised President Obama to do this swap really did him a disservice and should be fired.

I was a member of the 4-25 BCT (ABN) out of Ft Richardson, AK and deployed with Bergdahl and thousands of other "Spartans" for OEF 09-10. Bergdahl was in the 501st (Geronimo) and I served in the 1/40 CAV (Denali) so I did not know him.

It is impossible to describe the palpable hatred everyone had for Bergdahl after his desertion. He completely disrupted combat operations. The brigade's AO was completely shut down for a month and all resources were poured into the search. Our troop gave up 2 and half platoons, our HUMINT and SIGINT guys and their terps. All that remained on our little combat outpost (COP) was the AA and a skeleton crew for force protection. Imagine that happening to every company and troop in the brigade and you understand the ripple effect his desertion had. It was even worse that it happened in summer which should have been the peak of the fight, because the Taliban typically refits in the winter. So instead of taking the fight to the enemy everyone was looking for Bergdahl.

I can't imagine how much more hatred his fellow Geronimo soldiers felt, especially when they lost men in the search. Which is why we are seeing those that have left the army now speaking out.

It's a shame with all the signs that he was apparently giving off prior that it was not recognized. (NOBODY ships their computer home while deployed unless they have a replacement in hand.) All of this could have been avoided if he had been redeployed to rear-d in Ft Rich when he started acting squirrely.

I wonder if the president was ever fully briefed on the circumstances around Bergdahl. I find it hard to believe anyone would make this exchange if they knew all the facts.

 

[rabidTU]

Originally posted by ORUalum:
Whoever advised President Obama to do this swap really did him a disservice and should be fired.

I was a member of the 4-25 BCT (ABN) out of Ft Richardson, AK and deployed with Bergdahl and thousands of other "Spartans" for OEF 09-10. Bergdahl was in the 501st (Geronimo) and I served in the 1/40 CAV (Denali) so I did not know him.

It is impossible to describe the palpable hatred everyone had for Bergdahl after his desertion. He completely disrupted combat operations. The brigade's AO was completely shut down for a month and all resources were poured into the search. Our troop gave up 2 and half platoons, our HUMINT and SIGINT guys and their terps. All that remained on our little combat outpost (COP) was the AA and a skeleton crew for force protection. Imagine that happening to every company and troop in the brigade and you understand the ripple effect his desertion had. It was even worse that it happened in summer which should have been the peak of the fight, because the Taliban typically refits in the winter. So instead of taking the fight to the enemy everyone was looking for Bergdahl.

I can't imagine how much more hatred his fellow Geronimo soldiers felt, especially when they lost men in the search. Which is why we are seeing those that have left the army now speaking out.

It's a shame with all the signs that he was apparently giving off prior that it was not recognized. (NOBODY ships their computer home while deployed unless they have a replacement in hand.) All of this could have been avoided if he had been redeployed to rear-d in Ft Rich when he started acting squirrely.

I wonder if the president was ever fully briefed on the circumstances around Bergdahl. I find it hard to believe anyone would make this exchange if they knew all the facts.

Thanks for the input. If you happen to hear anything else on the matter, please feel free to post your thoughts. Thanks again.

 

[rabidTU]

Originally posted by rabidTU:

Originally posted by ORUalum:
Whoever advised President Obama to do this swap really did him a disservice and should be fired.

I was a member of the 4-25 BCT (ABN) out of Ft Richardson, AK and deployed with Bergdahl and thousands of other "Spartans" for OEF 09-10. Bergdahl was in the 501st (Geronimo) and I served in the 1/40 CAV (Denali) so I did not know him.

It is impossible to describe the palpable hatred everyone had for Bergdahl after his desertion. He completely disrupted combat operations. The brigade's AO was completely shut down for a month and all resources were poured into the search. Our troop gave up 2 and half platoons, our HUMINT and SIGINT guys and their terps. All that remained on our little combat outpost (COP) was the AA and a skeleton crew for force protection. Imagine that happening to every company and troop in the brigade and you understand the ripple effect his desertion had. It was even worse that it happened in summer which should have been the peak of the fight, because the Taliban typically refits in the winter. So instead of taking the fight to the enemy everyone was looking for Bergdahl.

I can't imagine how much more hatred his fellow Geronimo soldiers felt, especially when they lost men in the search. Which is why we are seeing those that have left the army now speaking out.

It's a shame with all the signs that he was apparently giving off prior that it was not recognized. (NOBODY ships their computer home while deployed unless they have a replacement in hand.) All of this could have been avoided if he had been redeployed to rear-d in Ft Rich when he started acting squirrely.

I wonder if the president was ever fully briefed on the circumstances around Bergdahl. I find it hard to believe anyone would make this exchange if they knew all the facts.

Thanks for the input. If you happen to hear anything else on the matter, please feel free to post your thoughts. Thanks again.

Question: Can a soldier defect without breaking military law?

Even if BB didn't desert (in the face of the enemy), he had to have defected unless he was captured/kidnapped and there is no evidence whatsover of that. So if he was not taken by the enemy, he had to have voluntarily left his post. Call it what you like - desertion, AWOL, defection, he was not a war hero to anyone who has any degree of sanity. And spending american lives to retrieve an accused "defector" has to be the worst example of leadership there is.

IMO

 

[aTUfan]

BHO is not a good leader.
His administration has run amuck with scandals, and bad decisions.


He might be a nice guy,
He might be a humanitariun.
He might have good intentions.

BUT sometimes you have to make the hard decision and say "NO".

HRC was right. He was not ready to answer the phone at 3:00am.

 

[old_goat_23]

There really isn't something called "defection" in the military. Defection is more a political and intelligence term. You can't be AWOL, desert or abandon your post in the CIA but you can defect. For the military you have three basic concepts that apply to this situation:

AWOL = Absent Without Leave. There are types and levels of this but basically if you aren't at your post or duty station when you are supposed to be you are AWOL. There are sub classification that are considered "unexplained absence" but they are all types of AWOL.

Desertion = Abandoning your unit. You could be classified as AWOL but actually be a deserter ... but you couldn't be a deserter without also being AWOL. The worst kind of desertion is "under fire" closely followed by "in the face of the enemy". This situation would definitely be "in the face of the enemy" with some bonus points for abandoning a post.

Treason = This may or may not involve being AWOL or desertion. However, it means that you are actively supporting the efforts of your enemy. You may desert and then commit treason ... heck, you can go AWOL then be classified as a deserter and then be charged with treason.

This situation looks more and more like Bergdahl sought out the enemy and planned his desertion.

Hope this helps.

 

[rabidTU]

Originally posted by old_goat_23:
There really isn't something called "defection" in the military. Defection is more a political and intelligence term. You can't be AWOL, desert or abandon your post in the CIA but you can defect. For the military you have three basic concepts that apply to this situation:

AWOL = Absent Without Leave. There are types and levels of this but basically if you aren't at your post or duty station when you are supposed to be you are AWOL. There are sub classification that are considered "unexplained absence" but they are all types of AWOL.

Desertion = Abandoning your unit. You could be classified as AWOL but actually be a deserter ... but you couldn't be a deserter without also being AWOL. The worst kind of desertion is "under fire" closely followed by "in the face of the enemy". This situation would definitely be "in the face of the enemy" with some bonus points for abandoning a post.

Treason = This may or may not involve being AWOL or desertion. However, it means that you are actively supporting the efforts of your enemy. You may desert and then commit treason ... heck, you can go AWOL then be classified as a deserter and then be charged with treason.

This situation looks more and more like Bergdahl sought out the enemy and planned his desertion.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for that. The end result is that anyone who isn't captured, leaves their post and seeks out the enemy instead of their comrades, isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, serving honorably.

 

[old_goat_23]

The concept on the part of Rice et al appears to be that anyone who volunteers and signs the initial paperwork qualifies as having served with "honor and distinction". Again, an issue with lack of experience with or exposure to the military for this Administration. I guess that the very thought of military service is so abhorrent to Obama and his team that just signing up is the limits of their understanding.

No. You cannot be labeled as having served with "honor and distinction" until your term is over. It is the sum total of your service experience, not the fact that you served, that provides the label. Not something that should ever be said about a deserter.

One thing that is very troubling to me (and a lot of my friends) is that it is possible Obama, Rice and others honestly believe the most honorable thing Bergdahl did was to abandon his post and desert. In their minds, by doing this he was "following his conscience" and standing up against the horrors of the US Military. This is a throw back to the later days of the Vietnam era when avoiding the draft was considered by some to be "heroic" and "honorable". However, given some of Obama's mentors, it would not be a surprising mindset for him to possess.

Thanks.