Negotiating With The Taliban.

[Razgovory]

Yi, as far as I know Bergdahl has not been convicted of anything, it would be inappropriate to take the tack of "Leave him to die" for an American citizen who has only been accused of something.

I get the sense you think this somehow rebuts something that I wrote.

The desertion allegations are irrelevant as he has not been convicted of anything.  If people were changing their opinion based on whether or not he should be saved based on allegations then they acting inappropriately.

[Sheilbh]

Well yeah, if you follow the story on Fox you're going to get a lot of outrage.

I, on the other hand, have been following it mostly on CNN, and have yet to see any outrage.

But CNN's the minnow of the news channels. You're wilfully blinding yourself to most American politics at the minute if you're not trying to keep up with the two outrage machines on either side. Especially because what starts as an outre attack on a blog often gets sanded down into a piece on Fox/MSNBC and later refined into respectable opinion on CNN or in a comment piece.

Disagree on these two.  Members of his platoon came forward after the exchange was announced to express their opinions about Bergdahl's actions.  I don't need to wait for a court verdict before I can start forming an opinion on whether he deserted or not.

But as I say let's not forget that troops lie, or with the best intentions misinterpret things, or don't understand the guy who doesn't quite fit in. As I've mentioned before a lot of the evidence seems to be that he was learning the language and trying to be friendly with local Afghans - such as his wanderings off-base to the local ANA post. We have the examples of Metzger and Tillman to remind us of that and I think if we want to call him a deserter (or someone else a murderer) it's best to wait for that to be established. Form an opinion, but I think it's wrong to just call him a deserter and definitely wrong to do it over national news.

From the perspective of policy I think it's even more clear. You can either not leave a soldier behind - who is officially missing-captured - or you can choose to do nothing based on allegations even if from other soldiers. I think it's clearly right that you negotiate for him as you would any other soldier and then establish whether he deserted or not rather than pre-judging the issue and leaving a soldier in enemy hands who may not have deserted, or may have had a breakdown, or whatever else.

The people who changed their tune were, AFAIK, unaware of the desertion allegation when they pushed for his release.  It would be very peculiar if they did *not* change their stance when that came to light.

Yeah, but those allegations were around in 2009. They're not new.

I'm a little iffyer on this one.  I have read somewhere that members of Congress feel like they were lied to by the White House.  That's not a joking matter.

Lied to how? I'm not clear on this.

[Razgovory]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro

[Admiral Yi]

But CNN's the minnow of the news channels. You're wilfully blinding yourself to most American politics at the minute if you're not trying to keep up with the two outrage machines on either side. Especially because what starts as an outre attack on a blog often gets sanded down into a piece on Fox/MSNBC and later refined into respectable opinion on CNN or in a comment piece.

Sure yeah, but by the same token Fox and MSNBC are not what define "the tone of the national dialogue," which is what i was trying to get at.

Disagree on these two.  Members of his platoon came forward after the exchange was announced to express their opinions about Bergdahl's actions.  I don't need to wait for a court verdict before I can start forming an opinion on whether he deserted or not.

But as I say let's not forget that troops lie, or with the best intentions misinterpret things, or don't understand the guy who doesn't quite fit in. As I've mentioned before a lot of the evidence seems to be that he was learning the language and trying to be friendly with local Afghans - such as his wanderings off-base to the local ANA post.

This is the kind of argument you use in criminal court to beat the reasonable doubt level of proof.  I agree that we have not established that Bergdahl is a deserter at that level of certainty.  But as I already expressed, in public discourse we don't need that level of certainty to express an opinion. 

From the perspective of policy I think it's even more clear. You can either not leave a soldier behind - who is officially missing-captured - or you can choose to do nothing based on allegations even if from other soldiers. I think it's clearly right that you negotiate for him as you would any other soldier and then establish whether he deserted or not rather than pre-judging the issue and leaving a soldier in enemy hands who may not have deserted, or may have had a breakdown, or whatever else.

Now here's the reasonable core of the debate IMO.  How should one proceed as a principal with the information we have now?  And here's also where I think the true cultural cleavage lies.  Depending on where you fall on the spectrum, your attitude towards desertion in general, and desertion towards this particular group in this particular war, is going to differ vastly.  And that's why I think Obama fucked this up, because nonpartisan, swing vote, middle America is going to end up saying he was a fucker and we paid to get him back.

The people who changed their tune were, AFAIK, unaware of the desertion allegation when they pushed for his release.  It would be very peculiar if they did *not* change their stance when that came to light.

Yeah, but those allegations were around in 2009. They're not new.

They never showed up on my radar, and my radar is motherfucking good.

Lied to how? I'm not clear on this.

Dunno.  It was a first impression blurb I read in some article I can't recall.

[grumbler]

I must admit that I'm still not "getting" the congressional outrage.  Yeah, they passed a law saying that the president wasn't the commander-in-chief when it comes to Gitmo POWs because... well, because.  Obama signalled in his signing statement that Congress was overstepping its authority, though he didn't veto.  Swapping their POWs for ours is a standard procedure, and one the CinC has had, in the past, exclusive control over.  The Taliban had the leverage to get a pretty good deal.

That somebody on this board heard somewhere that some of the Taliban were "wanted by the UN" for "war crimes or something" is meaningless noise. "The UN" doesn't want people for war crime; the ICC does.  The ICC didn't request extradition, as far as I can tell, so probably what people on this board 'heard" was mistaken, or they themselves misunderstood.

As far as Bergdahl costing money to incarcerate, the released Taliban cost a lot as well, so the US actually saved some money.

The one thing that impresses me about this whole thing is that the Republicans seem to have scored a major political victory by successfully portraying both Obama's failure to free Bergdahl in the past, and his success in the present, as incompetence.  Winning a battle of wits against an unarmed man isn't that great an accomplishment, but they have done it.

[citizen k]

I must admit that I'm still not "getting" the congressional outrage...

POTM

Did you read my posting of the Christian Science Monitor article? Like your post, a rational take on the situation. A few of the released Taliban are more functionaries and moderate members than blood thirsty terrorists. Hardly "worst of the worse".

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0601/Five-Taliban-released-for-Sgt.-Bergdahl-This-is-how-wars-end.-video

[grumbler]

POTM

Did you read my posting of the Christian Science Monitor article? Like your post, a rational take on the situation. A few of the released Taliban are more functionaries and moderate members than blood thirsty terrorists. Hardly "worst of the worse".

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0601/Five-Taliban-released-for-Sgt.-Bergdahl-This-is-how-wars-end.-video

I did see that, and agree.  The US rounded these guys up as part of a war not on terrorism, per se, but on a regime that didn't care that it was supporting terrorism.  That these guys were POWs, not criminal terrorists, is demonstrated by the fact that the same congress that is whining about their release also passed laws making it illegal to give them trials.  If they were criminals, they had a right to a speedy trial.  The lack of a trial means either that Congress doesn't see them as criminals, or else that it was itself willing to violate the constitution.

Yeah, it sucks to release people who are enemies of the country.  But life is full of choices that suck.  Congress needs to man up and deal.

[Sheilbh]

Sure yeah, but by the same token Fox and MSNBC are not what define "the tone of the national dialogue," which is what i was trying to get at.

I think they are, far more than CNN or NPR or the NYT.

This is the kind of argument you use in criminal court to beat the reasonable doubt level of proof.  I agree that we have not established that Bergdahl is a deserter at that level of certainty.  But as I already expressed, in public discourse we don't need that level of certainty to express an opinion. 

I don't think it is. Public discourse doesn't need any level of certainty to express an opinion. That's never been an issue for public discourse. Which is generally fine. But that doesn't mean TV networks or politicians should be branding him a deserter. See here for the doubts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/world/asia/bowe-bergdahl-walked-away-before-military-report-says.html?hp&_r=0

A classified military report detailing the Army's investigation into the disappearance of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in June 2009 says that he had wandered away from assigned areas before — both at a training range in California and at his remote outpost in Afghanistan — and then returned, according to people briefed on it.
...
But the report is said to contain no mention of Sergeant Bergdahl's having left behind a letter in his tent that explicitly said he was deserting and explained his disillusionment, as a retired senior military official briefed on the investigation at the time told The New York Times this week.
...
It is said to confirm certain other details relayed in recent accounts, including that Sergeant Bergdahl shipped his computer and a journal home before he disappeared. It also confirms that he left behind his body armor and weapon — an unwieldy SAW machine gun — taking with him water, knives and a compass.

The report speculates that he most likely left in darkness after the moon had set, following one of two possible routes through the concertina wire.

While much of the report is said to focus on disciplinary problems in his unit and a lack of accountability in its chain of command, it is also said to portray Sergeant Bergdahl as a free-spirited young man who read martial-arts books, drank tea with Afghan soldiers from whom he tried to pick up Pashto phrases, and maintained a collection of throwing stars and knives, which it documents in detail.

Its portrayal of him as a soldier is said to be positive, with quotes from both commanders and squad mates — apparently including some of the men now criticizing him — describing him as punctual, always in the correct uniform and asking good questions. It quotes colleagues as saying that he expressed some boredom and frustration that they were not "kicking down doors" more to go after insurgents who were destroying schools.

The report is also said to contain no mention of any alleged intercepts of radio or cellphone traffic indicating that Sergeant Bergdahl was asking villagers if anyone spoke English and trying to get in touch with the Taliban, as two former squad mates told CNN this week in separate interviews; they both said they remembered hearing about the intercepts from a translator who received the report.

So the sources for his desertion are a note no-one can find, testimony that can't be substantiated, anonymous Taliban quotes and a suggestion that he'd gone native. That shouldn't be enough to fuck up this guy's homecoming.

Now here's the reasonable core of the debate IMO.  How should one proceed as a principal with the information we have now?  And here's also where I think the true cultural cleavage lies.  Depending on where you fall on the spectrum, your attitude towards desertion in general, and desertion towards this particular group in this particular war, is going to differ vastly.  And that's why I think Obama fucked this up, because nonpartisan, swing vote, middle America is going to end up saying he was a fucker and we paid to get him back.

I disagree that it matters what your attitude to desertion or this war is. If we assume everything turns out true: that he did desert and that he was running off to India, where does that leave you? You're okay with effectively leaving him (still an American soldier) with the Taliban until they decide to behead him? In my view I think unless a British soldier was now actively fighting with the Taliban/whoever else against British forces they should be brought home.

From a policy perspective I can't see any alternative and I don't understand how you judge - short of a trial - which American soldiers deserve to be left in enemy hands? Either way the government'll be attacked. I don't think Obama fucked up, I think this was the right choice, but he definitely lost the political battle afterwards.

They never showed up on my radar, and my radar is motherfucking good.

Okay. I think for most normal people that's fine. But with conservative politicians and media figures they either didn't know, which is also fine, but suggests they weren't reading much on Bergdahl's case before the rescue and the failure to free him was just a convenient stick to beat Obama with. Or they did know and they've just flip-flopped to whichever position allows them to attack Obama.

I think that's all part of the syntheticness of the outrage.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think it is. Public discourse doesn't need any level of certainty to express an opinion. That's never been an issue for public discourse. Which is generally fine. But that doesn't mean TV networks or politicians should be branding him a deserter.

The distinction between expressing an opinion and branding eludes me.

So the sources for his desertion are a note no-one can find, testimony that can't be substantiated, anonymous Taliban quotes and a suggestion that he'd gone native. That shouldn't be enough to fuck up this guy's homecoming.[/quote]

No substantiation?  I've heard that numerous members of his platoon believe he was a deserter.

[grumbler]

No substantiation?  I've heard that numerous members of his platoon believe he was a deserter.

Aren't those examples of opinions that can't be substantiated?  In a court-martial, they don't convict someone of desertion based on a vote of the opinions of the members of his unit.

I will say that they, at least, knew the guy.  They have a right to an opinion.  John McCain does not.

[Sheilbh]

The distinction between expressing an opinion and branding eludes me.

'I think he deserted.' 'In my opinion, he's a deserter.' v. 'We released five dangerous terrorists and get a deserter in return.' The difference between stating an opinion and a fact has been ignored by a lot of news commentators this last week.

Every single one of the things Hans went on to say - the note, comments about opposing the US and supporting the Afghans - has either never been found or has been contested by other of his comrades.

Meanwhile, outside of the political air war, the consequences of this are that his home town have had to cancel a planned homecoming celebration for fear of disruption and the FBI are investigating death threats against his family.

No substantiation?  I've heard that numerous members of his platoon believe he was a deserter.

And numerous disagree with them. You know, Metzger's unit thought she'd run off to get an abortion. Though as grumbler says that's not substance either and convicting someone of desertion should be more than a show of hands among his comrades.

[Admiral Yi]

When you say disputed, are you talking about the guy in his unit in Alaska?  If you're talking about guys in his unit in Afghanistan, could you indulge me in a link?

Also, do you demand the same standard of qualification from those who assert he was  POW, such as the president? 

[Sheilbh]

When you say disputed, are you talking about the guy in his unit in Alaska?  If you're talking about guys in his unit in Afghanistan, could you indulge me in a link?

I think it was in the NYT piece I linked, that some members in the military's investigation didn't think he deserted; others did. It's also in the big Hastings' Rolling Stone piece from 2012 I think someone linked to (which also mentions a Republican aide who thought the deal Obama discussed with the Senate in 2012 would be his Willie Horton moment and includes the desertion allegations). And, again, Joshua Foust's twitter

Some guys in his unit think he deserted, others don't. Based on everything that's out there I think he was definitely AWOL but it really doesn't seem clear that he deserted (and of course given that we know he routinely left base it's not beyond the ken of the Taliban or local sympathisers to notice that).

Also, do you demand the same standard of qualification from those who assert he was  POW, such as the president? 

What needs to be qualified? I'm not sure what you mean. Doesn't POW just mean the Taliban would have to treat him well - rather than as they reportedly did torturing him, keeping him leashed and in a cage after his 2-3 escape attempts.

I think on that that he was a hostage and was treated as a hostage. But I've read that this was considered one of the first issues to deal with the Taliban on and almost as a test, or a 'confidence building measure', over negotiations. In that context I think it makes more sense to call him a PoW than a hostage.

[Admiral Yi]

Didn't see anything like that in the NYT link.

[derspiess]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/06/politics/rice-cnn-interview/index.html

Colleville-sur-Mer, FRANCE (CNN) -- President Barack Obama's national security adviser said Friday that her full-throated praise of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was appropriate given the former Taliban prisoner's willingness to go to war for his country -- despite questions about whether or not he deserted his Army colleagues.

  Oh, Susan...

What about all the Conservative praise for him...up until they all got the memo that this was another chance to attack the President?

Are you asking me?  I can't really answer for them, but from what I've read they were making their statements before the dirt started to appear on Bergdahl.  Our pal Susan kept spouting her ignorant talking points (and doubled down on them later) after we started hearing negative things about Bergdahl.