General says Bergdahl doesn’t deserve jail
Source: Washington Post
JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-FORT SAM HOUSTON, Texas
The Army general who carried out an investigation last year into the alleged desertion of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl said he believes that a jail sentence would be “inappropriate,” despite the massive search that followed when Bergdahl walked away from his unit’s outpost in Afghanistan.
Maj. Gen. Kenneth Dahl testified here Friday that he found Bergdahl “unrealistically idealistic” about other people and remorseful for his actions.
In June 2009, Bergdahl left his platoon’s outpost, Observation Post Mest in Paktika province, with plans to run 19 miles to the larger Forward Operating Base Sharana, cause a disruption and get the attention of a general, Dahl said. Instead, he was captured by insurgents who held him for five years.
“I do not believe that there is a jail sentence at the end of this process,” Dahl said.
Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/nation-world/national/article35806596.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
delrem
(9,688 posts)having a hell of a story to tell.
What kind of tormentor would want to shit on that?
Human101948
(3,457 posts)They were screaming for his head on a platter.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)They seem to have infected many, many victims.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)agrees with the general - and by the way, we have members in Canada too.
You can call Bowe "overly idealistic" if you want. To me, his actions were
an attempt at a sane response to an insane situation.
I have yet to hear a single veteran of either Iraq or Afghanistan say that
they are good missions.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,198 posts)Let him live the rest of his life in peace as a free, private citizen.
branford
(4,462 posts)he should receive a dishonorable discharge with accompanying forfeiture of his rank and pay after the desertion and all veteran benefits. He should receive credit for his time as a Taliban prisoner toward any incarcerative sentence, which will likely mean he would serve no time in prison. Regardless of how one feels about the war in Afghanistan, desertion in the military is still a serious offence.
Moreover, most of the coverage I've read and seen seems to indicate that most service members and conservatives are far more interested in a basic official acknowledgement of the desertion and tremendous efforts to find and return him, particularly after the president and Susan Rice implied Bergdahl was somehow heroic after the Rose Garden speech and various interviews, even though they were well aware of the controversy regarding his capture. Any prison sentence appears to be an unimportant afterthought.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Then they used Bergdahl as a political whipping boy. It was a trap of sorts--if Bergdahl died in captivity with a beheading video bonus, they would have pounded Obama for leaving Bergdahl to die. Republican operatives (Richard Grinnell) had a few of Bergdahl's platoon mates lined up and ready to go with public statements as soon as he was freed, before he even made it back to US soil. The use of dead soldiers as political fodder was especially unconscionable. The whole outcry was a set-up to sway public opinion against the deal and against Obama. Many in the military (my husband included) had heard that Bergdahl was a "shitbird", that had been spread far and wide within the ranks over the years--but beyond that, I doubt most give a rat's ass about him either way. He would have been quietly dealt with by the Army as appropriate, in any case. The controversy was ginned up almost entirely by conservative politicians to make the Taliban prisoner swap look BAD in an election year by highlighting Bergdahl's UNWORTHINESS for rescue, and that's about it.
branford
(4,462 posts)about the release or make Susan Rice discuss Bergdahl's service of "honor and distinction" on multiple Sunday morning talk shows, all while knowing the military's investigation indicated that Bergdahl deserted.
The president traded the equivalent of five Taliban generals for someone they knew likely deserted. There was no question that the deal had serious political overtones, and no matter how much you (or I) disagree with how Republicans reacted or even the sincerity of their beliefs, trying to absolve the Obama administration of how they badly screwed-up and aggravated the political situation appears disingenuous, even to Democratic partisans like myself. Politics is hard ball.
Moreover, even today, most of the critics of the deal still openly agree that we should have tried to bring Bergdahl home. He was an American serviceman, no matter his faults or crimes, and should not be left with barbarians like the Taliban. That does not mean anyone needs to believe the president made a good or appropriate deal, or that his release should have come at any price. His capture and incarceration additionally does not absolve him of any crimes, and his court martial, if supported by sufficient evidence, as appears to be the case, is appropriate. No doubt, if convicted, Bergdahl's years with the Taliban will quite properly be considered in determining the nature and extent of his sentence.
While you've generally correctly observed the politics of the matter, if Bergdahl indeed deserted, don't you believe he both should have been brought home and that he deserves punishment for the crime (at least a dishonorable discharge)?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)and genuinely happy and relieved that the guy was coming home. That had been a huge weight on him for five years, the Bergdahls were actually very close with CentCom (including Gen. Mattis) and it had been a famous case because of the Rolling Stone article. I don't think they were prepared for how venal the Repubs were in their quest to deny him any sort of political gain related to it, to the point of ginning up so much crazed right wing anger that the poor guy has death threats against him now. My feelings on Bergdahl have been pretty consistent--he was a mentally disturbed young man from a weird family that encouraged his delusions (like joining the French foreign legion, for God's sake) and worst impulses. He had no business being in the Army, the Army knew it, they waivered him in after his Coast Guard rejection and they stuck him in the worst possible spot on earth anyway. You don't get mad at someone with a heart valve defect who collapses when too much physical strain is placed upon him, well, I don't get mad at someone with a clear and previously noted mental or emotional disturbance who acts irresponsibly and nuttily when too much stress is placed upon him. I think they should give him a slap on the wrist, an other than honorable discharge and send him on his way.
branford
(4,462 posts)but as an attorney, am confident that his counsel will raise the issue both as an exculpatory matter or for mitigation in sentencing.
Since a preliminary investigation into Bergdahl's conduct occurred well before the release and indicated he did desert, and the president choose to release five top level Guantanamo prisoners for Bergdahl, if the president didn't expect the Republicans to take full political advantage of the situation, he committed political malpractice. The reaction was totally unsurprising, particularly since Bergdahl's squad-mates already testified in the preliminary investigation.
The president should have directed his press secretary to quietly announce the prisoner swap late on a Friday afternoon, and rather than permit our then Ambassador to the United Nations (where was the Sec. of Defense, State, JCOS's, etc.?) to go on multiple talk shows discussing Bergdahl's service of "honor and distinction," should have only emphasized our need to return him home, where if necessary, America alone would deal with any potential crimes. The war hero shtick was never a good political strategy under the circumstances, and Republican venality only made such as tactic all the more ludicrous.
I also give a great deal of credence to the theory that since the president desperately (and wisely) wants to close Guantanamo, and the five Taliban in the trade were not otherwise cleared for release, his political advisers saw an opportunity to get rid them while bringing a soldier home. In the abstract, it wasn't unreasonable. However, there was no doubt Republicans, and many Democrats, were going to question the president's negotiating skills and the deal itself, and whether the Guantanamo issue was relevant or not, implying that we would basically agree to any deal for Bergdahl's return was never a good political strategy, either then or concerning potential future prisoners.
In any event, if convicted, a less honorable discharge and loss of benefits accrued due to the desertion, without any incarceration, would not only satisfy Democrats like myself, but likely the majority Republicans.
My biggest problem concerns those who wish to excuse or exonerate Bergdahl because of their general opposition to the war in Afghanistan. As your husband will likely attest, Bergdahl's alleged crimes are serious, and his or others' general objections to the war are not much of a legal defense for desertion.
I would note that if convicted, the president always has the option to commute Bergdahl's sentence or pardon him completely. Absent a very unlikely sentence involving a long period of incarceration, I doubt Obama would consider exercising such discretion, and will happily put this matter behind him.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)To me, that was overblown, a myth. Standing with his parents to announce his return (which I watched) was basically just that--an announcement--NOT a "ceremony"--about getting him home alive, leave no man behind, we take care of our servicemen, no one is forgotten--that sort of thing--and the Bergdahls had a long personal history with the administration. I don't recall lots of praise for Bergdahl's actions or claims of his heroism during that announcement. Susan Rice defended his record inartfully, but I never saw an organized attempt to portray him as anything other than a soldier who had been rescued. I am critical of Obama at times (more so recently), but that bothered me not at all. They had a right to be happy about it and to expect the rest of America to say, "hey good, our POW made it back". The operation to bring him home was big, complex and dangerous, BTW, and could have gone sideways at any point, so praise and recognition was certainly due those who got him home. The time to dissect his conduct and discipline him was later. But no matter what, the GOP would have attacked like the opportunistic dogs they are.
The Gitmo swap--also overblown. I think 5 Taliban numbnuts, most of whom were administrative officials who were so wily and skillful they got themselves captured ten or more years ago, was not an overly high price--especially considering the outcry that a ransom or a failed hostage rescue with dead/captured special forces would have caused. No one had come up with a better option that both sides could agree to, they weren't even sure he was still alive by December of 2013, and we have greatly reduced our presence in Afghanistan which limits our operating ability--in other words, not a lot of time left. After five years of torment for this guy and his family, how long were negotiations with two terrorist networks and an intermediary country supposed to stretch? Until he was dead?
The anti-Afghan war stuff--that's not me, and that's neither here nor there. I fully understand that desertion is serious, but his mental state and psych/behavioral history will almost certainly be found to have been a factor--a major factor. He sounded delusional and irrational, in Kenneth Dahl's description, and there's no reason to believe that anyone is lying in their testimony.
I think a judicial process and some form of administrative punishment is justified--certainly not prison. The Army bears some responsibility, his commanders and recruiters bear some responsibility, he bears some responsibility. I think that's a fair way to look at it.
Overseas
(12,121 posts)He already served 5 years as a prisoner.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Who would want to live through what he had to endure? A jail sentence would be BEYOND cruel. Besides that, reading through Dahl's testimony, the guy truly wasn't right in the head to begin with--which everyone kind of knew, including one of his platoon mates, who brought his concerns about Bergdahl to his commanders, but was told to shut up and go away.
sarge43
(28,945 posts)It may want to back away from the severe charges ... and it should.
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)....that said "Bring Bergdahl Home."
Then the day after he was brought home, it was suddenly, "Fucking that deserting scum!"
I feel badly for how his family has been treated since his release.
branford
(4,462 posts)Even deserters do not deserve to be held captive by the Taliban, and it is America's right and obligation to deal with the crimes of those serving in uniform.
I also believe that much of the "fucking deserter scum" rhetoric was terribly aggravated by what many, including some Democrats, viewed as a horribly one-sided deal for his release and the president and Susan Rice's treatment of him like a veritable war hero. The White House certainly could have handled the political situation far better from the onset, and bears some blame for terrible optics and pr that exacerbated the situation.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I think a decent compromise could be reached. There is a discharge type that is not honorable or dishonorable, a general discharge. A general discharge with time served (his captivity by the Taliban), forfeiture of rank, and half pay during his period of captivity. He would still be eligible for veterans benefits under a general discharge.
Most likely Bergdhal is going to write a book after all the smoke clears (I can't imagine he wouldn't). He will probably make some money off of that as well.
branford
(4,462 posts)I imagine his lawyer will fight zealously for him to keep his medical and other veteran's benefit under any plea deal.
However, given the publicity of the case, extensive evidence, need for deterrence, and the potential penalties if convicted of desertion, no less the more serious "misbehavior before the enemy" charge, I cannot imagine any deal that will be palatable to the Army or public that wouldn't include an "other than honorable" discharge, and accompanying loss of benefits, along with forfeiture of rank and pay. If a deal was possible with a general discharge, it likely would have happened already.
I believe a general discharge under circumstances of desertion, along with the extensive and costly search, is not realistic unless the Army's evidence is far less extensive than portrayed in the media. Agreeing to apply Bergdahl's time in captivity towards any period of incarceration, however, seems both perfectly reasonable and politically acceptable.