Negotiating With The Taliban.

[Sheilbh]

You can form a pretty good idea from evidence gathered by an investigation.

Quite. It's pretty inconclusive:

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.

[CountDeMoney]

I don't think there should be any "rules" around such things - if someone is holding a US service member against their will, we should try to get them back regardless of what we suspect about crimes they may have committed prior to or in the act of his capture.

Shameful that there's actually a point of view out there like that, isn't it?
Surprising? Not really in this political atmosphere.  But shameful? Definitely.

Just another variation on the theme in the ongoing definition game of who is an American, and who isn't.

[garbon]

I don't think there should be any "rules" around such things - if someone is holding a US service member against their will, we should try to get them back regardless of what we suspect about crimes they may have committed prior to or in the act of his capture.

Shameful that there's actually a point of view out there like that, isn't it?
Surprising? Not really in this political atmosphere.  But shameful? Definitely.

Just another variation on the theme in the ongoing definition game of who is an American, and who isn't.

I dig it in theory. Particularly also with the edge of other countries knowing that we won't stop to try and get our armed services members back.

But then there are also always practical concerns to weigh (though certainly not saying that congress has raised any valid ones in this instance!).

[derspiess]

You can form a pretty good idea from evidence gathered by an investigation.

Quite. It's pretty inconclusive:

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.

It'd be nice to see the report, but these details are enough for me conclude that he most likely deserted. 

[CountDeMoney]

I dig it in theory. Particularly also with the edge of other countries knowing that we won't stop to try and get our armed services members back.

But then there are also always practical concerns to weigh (though certainly not saying that congress has raised any valid ones in this instance!).

It's not a new concept;  we've always gone the lengths necessary to bring back prisoners, and even remains, regardless of the circumstances.  It's what we do.

[The Minsky Moment]

I really don't care if he deserted or not. We should still get him back either way.

Agree that we should put some effort into getting him back.  We probably disagree on how much effort he's worth if he deserted.

derspiess has a point here.  In point of fact, and mythology aside, we don't really do *everything* to get POWs back, it depends on the cost.  If the cost were say withdrawing from all bases in the Middle East or handing over Guam to the Taliban, we obviously wouldn't do it.  If OBL had been captured and not killed, I assume we wouldn't trade him back either.  It is always a question of balance.  And given that it does seem reasonable to take into account evidence of desertion in determining the price to pay.

I don't agree with the hysterical way the issue has been raised by some in the GOP -- especially given that the facts are unclear --  but I do think questions of the kind that Yi raised in the thread are legit.

[Berkut]

I really don't care if he deserted or not. We should still get him back either way.

Agree that we should put some effort into getting him back.  We probably disagree on how much effort he's worth if he deserted.

derspiess has a point here.  In point of fact, and mythology aside, we don't really do *everything* to get POWs back, it depends on the cost.  If the cost were say withdrawing from all bases in the Middle East or handing over Guam to the Taliban, we obviously wouldn't do it.  If OBL had been captured and not killed, I assume we wouldn't trade him back either.  It is always a question of balance.  And given that it does seem reasonable to take into account evidence of desertion in determining the price to pay.

I don't agree with the hysterical way the issue has been raised by some in the GOP -- especially given that the facts are unclear --  but I do think questions of the kind that Yi raised in the thread are legit.

I don't agree at all.

There is no question, of course, that there is a limit to the cost we will pay.

But I do not in any way agree that said limit ought to be influenced by speculation as to the circumstances of their capture. In a practical sense, I guess it is somewhat inevitable that there is going to be such influence, simply because it is a emotionally charged issue. But the people making the actual decisions should strive to be as dispassionate as possible. Simply because it sends a terrible message to our service members otherwise.

"If you get captured, we will go to great lengths to get you back. Unless we decide we don't like you, of course".

[Sheilbh]

derspiess has a point here.  In point of fact, and mythology aside, we don't really do *everything* to get POWs back, it depends on the cost.  If the cost were say withdrawing from all bases in the Middle East or handing over Guam to the Taliban, we obviously wouldn't do it.  If OBL had been captured and not killed, I assume we wouldn't trade him back either.  It is always a question of balance.  And given that it does seem reasonable to take into account evidence of desertion in determining the price to pay.

I agree there's a limit. I'm not sure about taking into account evidence of desertion, but I'm not either way on it.

Isn't the trouble though avoiding it becoming an issue of political cravenness?

As I say back in 2009 one of Fox's commentators said that, on the evidence that he was a deserter, the Taliban had done us a favour and should shoot him. Similarly Republican aides said they thought it'd be Obama's 'Willie Horton moment' and Republican PR firms are helping direct the media to Bergdahl's comrades who think he deserted.

I can see letting the evidence of desertion help determine the price, but I think in reality it would be more likely that it'd be the potential political difficulties that would decide it which I'm less comfortable with.

[CountDeMoney]

If it had happened in this day and age, Republicans wouldn't want to get back John McCain unless the President identified an offsetting budget cut to make up for the cost of his A-4 first.

[The Minsky Moment]

But the people making the actual decisions should strive to be as dispassionate as possible. Simply because it sends a terrible message to our service members otherwise.

"If you get captured, we will go to great lengths to get you back. Unless we decide we don't like you, of course".

I don't think it is such a terrible thing to send the message that if you decide to walk off the base without leave, the powers that be may not pull out all the stops to get you back.  In fact, not sending that message can be problematic.  A big reason the military doesn't want its personnel walking off overseas bases in the first place is the risk of capture and blackmail by the enemy.  A soldier posted in a dangerous area that is assured up front that if he goes AWOL and is captured, the US will do everything possible to get him back, is not being given the most optimal incentives.

[CountDeMoney]

You guys would do great in a PTSD group counseling session. 

[grumbler]

I don't think it is such a terrible thing to send the message that if you decide to walk off the base without leave, the powers that be may not pull out all the stops to get you back.  In fact, not sending that message can be problematic.  A big reason the military doesn't want its personnel walking off overseas bases in the first place is the risk of capture and blackmail by the enemy.  A soldier posted in a dangerous area that is assured up front that if he goes AWOL and is captured, the US will do everything possible to get him back, is not being given the most optimal incentives.

I don't think Bergdahl's experiences are of such a nature as to make emulation sound very tempting to others. I also don't think it is a good idea to conclude the trial and pass sentence while the possible perp is in enemy hands.  The whole prospective hindsight thing sounds good as a policy when written on an internet discussion board, but it isn't much of a basis for policy in the real, non-internet-message-board world.

[Razgovory]

It'd be nice to see the report, but these details are enough for me conclude that he most likely deserted.

That's really sad.

[derspiess]

It'd be nice to see the report, but these details are enough for me conclude that he most likely deserted.

That's really sad.

Okay, Raz. 

[CountDeMoney]

Derfetus supports some of the troops.  He has half a gold ribbon car magnet.

"If I had ten divisions of Siegys, our problems here would be over very quickly."