General says Bergdahl doesn’t deserve jail

[branford]

12. Conservatives didn't force President Obama to give a Rose Garden press event

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)?