Three Points On Bergdahl.



Three Points On Bergdahl.  I have tried to listen to as many opinions as possible on this issue and to keep an open mind.  It is a complex issue and has many, many subtexts.  Making it even more difficult to understand is the fact that nobody really knows how much of the story is available and how much is still hidden.  To me, there are three important issues: (1) Was it a good idea to trade the Five for the One, (2) How do we process the issues surrounding Bergdahl and his possible desertion /collaboration, and (3) How did the Administration actually execute this swap; specifically, what was their rationale and their reasoning for not notifying Congress.

It is difficult to understand how trading the One for the Five makes sense in a strategic sense; it certainly seems like the enemy gets far more back than we do.  However, there is more here to consider than just strategy and prisoner swaps are not without precedent in our past and in the world today.  What makes this point more difficult to bring into focus is the fact that the war on terror, which is in fact what the Afghanistan conflict was part of, is not over.  It is ongoing with no end in sight.  It is equally true that the Taliban is not a foreign government representing a specific country.  It is not even clear that Bergdahl was considered a POW and, if not, exactly what his status was, or is.  As bad as it looks on the surface and as much as it appears to be a bad precedent, I feel one should table judgment on this issue until all the facts are in and several of the collateral issues are settled.

The elephant in the living room that many journalists don’t want to address is whether or not a possible deserter/collaborator’s life is of equal value to a captured soldier in good standing.  This is awkward to discuss and should be considered very carefully before establishing a policy.  It is also clear that the issues surrounding Bergdahl’s disappearance are not yet fully disclosed and those circumstances reflect mightily on this issue.  Another serious consideration on this point is the fact that Bergdahl was in captivity for five years.  Five years is an eternity in civilian life.  In captivity, it could be lifetimes.  Not one of us will ever know what Bergdahl experienced in captivity and the coercion he absorbed.  Wisdom dictates that we also reserve judgment in this area and let those best suited, the military, make the final determinations.

Finally, one needs to consider exactly how this swap was engineered by the Administration.  Once again, there are facts that are yet to be revealed that will no doubt bear upon any final verdict in this area.  However,  it also equally clear that this Administration has been less than forthcoming with these facts and they have certainly not earned a high degree of trust in their handling of  the issue.  If, in fact, the swap was executed for the noble cause of bringing home an American prisoner held by the enemy, then it should be no problem for the president to immediately stand before the White House press corps, make an explanatory statement about the situation, and accept all questions in an open and honest fashion.  The fact that a White House rose garden ceremony was held in lieu of a press conference tells us that the release was more likely an attempt at some good political press rather than any noble principle.  The fact that the Administration has come up with no fewer than four distinct reasons (one after the other, not simultaneous, and still counting) for the swap reveals that there is no basic truth to tell; there is no underlying principle that drove the decision.  It was simply a political attempt at gain and the evolving explanation for it clearly demonstrates that the story will remain entrenched in politics.  Had this been done based on conviction, the American public would have accepted a transparent explanation from the president of how it went down.  Yes, some would still have disagreed with the actions taken, but the president is in place to make hard decisions and t his was certainly one of those.  To me, the Administration’s handling of this issue following the release is that of a weasel and the weasel ways are continuing in the explanation of it.  Finally, should Congress have been notified and what do we make of the signing statement that accompanied the notification legislation?  Where the line lies between the Executive and the Legislative branches is best determined by the Judiciary.  Bush used signing statements and was crucified for it.  Obama is receiving the same treatment.  However, it not clear to me that the President should not have the authority to make this type of decision independent of Congress.  I give Obama a pass on this point and defer to the Judicial branch.  There can be no doubt, however, that given this president’s grandiose use of the executive action, his arrogance when dealing with Congress, and the partisan divide that grips this government, it clearly would have been wise to have consulted, conferred with, and advised selected members of both House of Congress prior to executing this action. 

Points one and two are outstanding and good people may disagree on their merits.  Point three indicts the president for bad judgment, arrogant behavior, and behaving like a politician rather than a leader.  Unfortunately, in this episode, his behavior in these areas has trumped the debate occurring in the first two.