But this comment by Mr. Obama,

"The United States of America does not ever leave our men and women in uniform behind..."

gives me the willies.

The US traditionally treats its soldiers and especially its veterans with varying degrees of contempt in my opinion. For returning vets, the lack of medical treatment has been a scandal for decades. Once in awhile the country takes notice, and then things slip back into the obscurity of indifference.

Why must we always set up this dynamic involving the term "hero?"  I understand heroic actions and behavior, but I don't think wearing a uniform automatically makes someone a hero.  I have a nephew in basic training at Parris Island: he's not a hero.  He's a 19 yr old kid who wants to learn to be a mechanic, who isn't cut out for college,  doesn't want a minimum wage job and can't afford to move out of mom and dad's house.  Maybe one day he'll do something heroic, but he's not there yet.

I don't know - I'm not sure anyone does - what the whole story is on Bowe Bergdahl, but what's really turning my stomach is that somehow whatever he's suffered at the hands of his captors isn't payment enough for whatever it is he's alleged to have done to get himself captured or for the lives lost looking for him.  We don't even know, at this point, what was done to him, what damages he's sustained, and yet the calls for the US to punish him are getting louder.

I hate the media. I hate the way they play these stories and the emotion attached to them.  I hate that the bloodthirsty slavering of war-mongering politicians keeps being treated as normal and good and credible.  

(2) The practice of prisoner exchanges are almost as old as the so-called "art of war" itself. In earlier times, the practice was to parole prisoners of war after their capture / surrender and send them home (which the Americans did to British soldiers at Saratoga in 1778), with the admonition that they were not to return to battle -- because if they did and were captured again, that was grounds for their summary execution.

(3) Abraham Lincoln was arguably the first leader in modern times to refuse to engage in prisoner exchanges during wartime, because he knew that the large numbers of Union prisoners in Confederate hands were proving an increasing burden upon the beleaguered and starving rebels. The resultant treatment of prisoners on both sides in the Civil War was an abomination, and responsibility for the horrors of Andersonville could just as easily be laid at the feet of Lincoln as it was at those of the camp's commander, Confederate Col. Henry Wirz, who was later executed for war crimes. Conditions at Camp Douglas, where rebel prisoners were held outside Chicago, was just as bad as Andersonville.

(3) The wingbats who are carping about this particular exchange have very short memories, especially when it comes to Republican presidents who negotiated for the release of American prisoners / hostages. The Iran-Contra scandal -- the genesis of which was the attempt by the Reagan administration to negotiate the release of American captives held in Beirut, Lebanon -- comes immediately and specifically to mind.

"Three years ago, a 23-year-old soldier walked off his base in Afghanistan and into the hands of the Taliban."

So let's get this straight right now.  At best he went AWOL.  There were latrines on base he could have used, but for some reason (and some claim it was to smoke hash) he walked off his base.

Rolling Stone

So yea, I am doubling down on my claim that he was not 'standing tall and looking good'.

But that article is from 2012.  Here is a link to a more recent article addressing the AWOL question in more detail

Christian Science Monitor

If you don't like these links simply do a google search on "Bergdahl AWOL".

My best guess is he will not be charged.  From the CBS link I posted earlier

"It's hard to imagine any circumstance where his captivity won't be viewed as time served," said Hunter, R-Calif.

He has shown the Muslim radicals that we will swap prisoners.

No American in any place in the world is now safe.

As for ""The United States of America does not ever leave our men and women in uniform behind..."

Sgt.

Great.   Economy be dammed.

I hope I live long enough for the giant I told you so and Jeralyn see's fit to keep this blog going.

Will likely make US soldiers and citizens more vulnerable to taking by terrorists, for later trading.

Gave up way too much, 5 high value Taliban, for this "soldier".

Some of the 5 will likely get back into the fight, as soon as they, is my view (and that's supported by prior US assessment of them).

Some Afghan people are upset that the US thinks so little of them, that the US was willing to made this trade (and effectively release the 5).

Bergdahl was a deserter, or went AWOl. Left his gun/gear behind, left with a compass and knife, and had mailed much of his stuff to Idaho. About 6 soldiers were killed looking for him, according to press reports. Another soldier is now in a wheel chair. The Taliban knew the US would be looking and were ready for that, and the Taliban starting shelling the FOB.

Many in the US military are upset with the trade, including my son who was in a sister unit in Alaska. His friends spent the summer "eating rockets" and being attacked occasionally.
When Hagel announced the swap at Baghran/Afghanistan as a great development, his audience was completely silent.

Obama ignored the law on this type of release.

Hagel foolishly argued that the US wasn't negotiating with terrorists, because Qatar had been the intermediary negotiator.

I think polls will show the country is solidly against Obama's move.

When, in recent history, has the US negotiated an exchange of prisoners, as opposed to something financially?