General says Bergdahl doesn’t deserve jail

[branford]

15. I can't speak to Bergdahl's mental state or capabilities as a professional matter,

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.