These are leaks that are keep on coming in the days ands weeks ahead. Fox News is reporting that senior military leaders urged President Obama not to release the 5 Taliban leaders.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/06/4-star-generals-taliban-source-says-military-officials-urged-against-trade/
It is also being reported to day that one of the 5, who are being allowed to roam free in Qatar, has stated that he will rejoin the jihad against the US. (Hat tip PJ Media)
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/06/06/taliban-commander-freed-in-bergdahl-swap-says-hell-fight-americans-again/
Of course, as we already know, the White House and State Department hacks told the military that they would have to "suck it up and salute".
I just wish that some of these high-ranking military leaders would now retire and go public.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Exchanged prisoners of war, sooner or later, always rejoin their unit, subject to being held for parole based on equal exchanges. Confederate officers did this during the Civil War, union officers did this, if prisoner exchanges happened during WW II (I'm not aware that arrangements were made to do so) nobody would have expected otherwise. So decrying that they will eventually rejoin their units is bogus.
The fact that Gary Fouse has posted 5-10 redundant articles on this silly hue and cry confirms for me that this has nothing to do with duty or propriety or good policy, and everything to do with "let's see if we can get Obama on this."
Now here is a sensible overview of the hue and cry:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/opinion/demonizing-sergeant-bergdahl.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
Oh, wait, it was published in the New York Times, so NOTHING in it could POSSIBLY be true, could it? Here is a key sample:
Four months ago, Senator John McCain said he would support the exchange of five hard-core Taliban leaders for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. “I would support,” he told CNN. “Obviously I’d have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home and if exchange was one of them I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.”
But the instant the Obama administration actually made that trade, Mr. McCain, as he has so often in the past, switched positions for maximum political advantage. “I would not have made this deal,” he said a few days ago. Suddenly the prisoner exchange is “troubling” and “poses a great threat” to service members. Hearings must be held, he said, and sharp questions asked.
This hypocrisy now pervades the Republican Party and the conservative movement, and has even infected several fearful Democrats. When they could use Sergeant Bergdahl’s captivity as a cudgel against the administration, they eagerly did so, loudly and in great numbers. And the moment they could use his release to make President Obama look weak on terrorism or simply incompetent, they reversed direction without a moment’s hesitation to jump aboard the new bandwagon.
The last few days have made clearer than ever that there is no action the Obama administration can take — not even the release of a possibly troubled American soldier from captivity — that cannot be used for political purposes by his opponents.
I note that most people serving in the military have political opinions of their own, and many are happy to use their uniform in the service of whatever opinion calls upon them for sustenance.
Some of the more astute people in the anti-war movement (Vietnam era) figures out that one Vietnam Veteran speaking against the war at a demonstration was worth a thousand hippies who had never served. Many were prepared to oblige, and in my opinion, for good reason. Did this mean EVERY Vietnam veteran agreed? Hell no -- that is how the guy who fronted "Swift Vote Beterans" first came to debate John Kerry while Nixon was still president. We all know there are some who still have angry bumper stickers about Jane Fonda and John Kerry.
Veterans of both persuasions had their boots on the ground. (Jane Fonda's boots on the ground don't count -- although there is the point that the difference between Bill Clinton and Jane Fonda is that Jane Fonda went to Vietnam).
Ditto for this instance. Republicans reached out to those veterans who had angry things to say about Bergdahl. They obligingly offered up their testimony. Business as usual. Politics.
The most coherent criticism I've read was, President Obama should have been astute enough, and inquired enough, to know there would be some blow-back, that this wasn't John Wayne or Barry Sadler released from captivity to an unmitigated hero's welcome. The exchange should have been handled quiely, instead of trumpeted with a White House photo op. The family wasn't prepared for this and shouldn't have to go through it.
But I'm happy for his family. And I still think the Republican flip-flop from 'we should be doing everything to get this hero out of enemy hands' to 'why did our president do such a terrible thing' turns on one concern:
Barack Obama got a great photo op with a veteran's family from red state Idaho over getting a soldier back from captivity.
Siarlys,
I honor John McCain's military service. I do not like him as a senator.
As for me, I don't think I ever ever heard of bergdahl until this week. I think you can see my evolution in my posts this week.
You are right. I have little regard for the NYT. They have no objectivity. They might as well become a blog like me.
Siarlys--do you not remember the now fairly old saw which went something like "you can tell how much the country is changing when the best and most famous golfer in the world is black, the most popular rap artist is white, and Bill Clinton finally goes to Viet Nam" (which he did in Nov. 2000, I believe)??
And the Right Honorable John Kerry is as big a mope as exists in Washington today. Your advice to him relative to the campaign may or may not have been useful, but the main thing I recall is that he basically said that Bush's service in the National Guard (and, by extension, similar service by those others of us serving in either the Guard or any of the various Reserve components at that time, and maybe ANY time) was essentially the equivalent of cowardice and absconding to a foreign country (Sweden, Canada, wherever), which Clinton (another real coward) thought about but discarded when he found another illegitimate way to avoid military service altogether.
Tell that to the Guardsmen/Reservists (and/or their family members/survivors) who have been fighting and dying every day for well over 10 years in two current wars.
And as to the "Swift Boaters", my memory is that there were a few people, maybe 8-10, who spoke favorably re Kerry, and I believe a couple hundred or so, some/many of whom, of course, admittedly had not served with him and did not have first-hand knowledge, who criticized him.
You are correct in saying that it is soldiers who served in Bergdahl's own unit who are speaking up against him. Many if not most members of any organization, military or civilian, usually get a "reputation" which is usually at least fairly accurate.
Accordingly, and in comparison, it is interesting and, to me, compelling that of 23 other Swift Boat officers (not enlisted men) who served in the same division at the same time as Kerry, thereby having essentially daily contact with him and who were in a very good position to observe and comment, 15 criticized him, 5 were neutral, and only 3 supported him.
Further, while he did in fact serve and return as a decorated veteran, there is a fairly substantial body of evidence out there that some of his medals, including his third Purple Heart which got him out of Nam in a little over four months rather than the usual 13-month (I believe) deployment, were bogus.
With particular regard to that particular Heart, Commander Grant Hibbard, probably a Lieutenant Commander at the time, who was a couple of notches above Kerry but in his direct chain-of-command, has indicated that it is most likely illegitimate.
Hibbard personally observed the pertinent wound and described it as a "scratch". According to the post-operation briefing of Hibbard, Kerry's boat did not come under enemy fire that day and therefore the injury obviously could not possibly have been caused by such fire. Hibbard concluded that the injury was most likely caused by a small piece of shrapnel from an M-79 which Kerry himself fired, which does not qualify for a Purple Heart Award. At least theoretically, any award should/would have gone through Hibbard, who said he had no knowledge or information as to any required medical treatment or how it was awarded.
Cowardice from Kerry?? You decide, I already have.
elwood, you are chronologically challenged. At the time of the Vietnam War, we had a military draft, so there were plenty of regular army troops to send. National guard units were indeed a refuge for those who didn't really want to go to Vietnam. In the more recent wars, a "lean" volunteer army needed massive supplements from national guard units, with results we are all too familiar with.
As for the unit Bergdahl served with, one of the latest news reports this morning is that his unit had poor leadership, low morale, was stuck in a mission where they could not defend themselves effectively nor take the offensive, and there are more than a few who thought him as good and committed a soldier as any. So there are many ways this could unfold.
I know you've already decided elwood, the word prejudice comes from the Latin, pre - judice, to judge before receiving the facts. How many decades did this Hibbard fellow wait to offer his considered opinion? Last I knew, the Purple Heart is not something you apply for.
Gary you may think what you like about the NY Times, and it takes a lot of positions too liberal for my left-wing socialist tastes, but in this specific instance, they have set forth some facts, and you haven't refuted them.
Post a Comment