Captured US Soldier

DanP

The right thing to do is to be judge the defector on home-soil by a military tribunal for his deeds. Im not saying that you should send a commando to rescue him and judge him. Im saying that no officer of the armed forces, retired of not, should say that the alleged defector is better off executed by Taliban.

No officer should dismiss the laws of his own realm and put justice in the hand of terrorists.

zomgwtf

That was exactly the point I was attempting to address. I guess it's different when you're a soldier and you can just easily say 'well I served and I never did that! Of course we shouldn't bother with him!'

Choronzon

I agree, that would be the right thing to do. If he were to be freed, I would wholeheartedly support such an action—I just don't think we need to spill American blood or give American treasure to our enemy in order to free him. I'm also not really going to take offense at someone who shrugs their shoulders and says that he got what he deserved, just like I wouldn't take offense if someone was just as unsympathetic to criminal who was killed by a would be victim. Yes, it is undoubtedly better to let our own system of justice do it's work, but it is also perfectly understandable for a person to despise criminals and traitors and to take satisfaction at their demise.

zomgwtf

Criminals and traitors? This guy is an American soldier and he went to Afghanistan to fight for America which he did do for 5 months while there.

I'd like for you to cite your sources of this soldier ever being a criminal or a traitor.

As well the Taliban seem to be taking care of the soldier and there demands are not for money. They want America to release some prisoners including a female Dr. at the request of the doctors family to the Taliban. This doctor was detained for attempting to murder US soldiers.

Choronzon

I'm not saying that he is—I've mentioned twice that I don't know for sure what happens, and that if he was innocent of the allegations, that I wish him the best. I believed we were discussing the appropriateness of his fate if he was indeed a deserter—was I wrong? I may have misunderstood the direction the discussion was going.

DanP

This is reasonable, for the case of a defector. Is there any solid indication the guy was defector, or only "questions"

I wont cry for any executed criminal. I wont shed tears for a guy killed while he is breaking entry into a home. I don't like the crybay crowed who begs for mercy for ppl schedule for legal homicide.

But I also dont like retired officers to make a show from serious matters, and even try to use them to gain spotlight for promoting his books or his image through shock-value. Shock-value is a form of violence and shouldn't be tolerated by civil society.

zomgwtf

I think so, the point of discussion is the 'Fox News Strategic Analyst' in an interview live on the air saying that the Taliban should just execute this soldier.

The story by Bergdahl is that he fell behind during a patrol, that's what he said on TV. The version by the Taliban discribes him being ambushed off base while he was drunk. The US military version is only that the Taliban version is a lie.

As well, my mistake Dr. Siddiqui is not an actual 'doctor' but a Pakistani scientist.

BobG

No, you didn't. In fact, I'd say you directed the direction of the discussion very well.


But I do agree he deserves no sympathy if he's a deserter. In fact, if turns out the true story was that John McCain was a deserter, then I think he deserves what he got during Viet Nam. Just like if the stories of the Swift Boaters had turned out to be entirely truthful, then Kerry would have deserved the scorn of voting Americans.

Choronzon

Lol, I can agree, except I find it unlikely that John McCain chose as his method of desertion being shot down.

Then again, I had heard somewhere that he had crashed his plane a couple of times before...

mheslep

That's trivially false. The US and other coalition members did not place a puppet government in Iraq, the Iraqi people have turned out in vast numbers at multiple elections at no little risk to themselves to choose their own officials.

Choronzon

I'd disagree—while the government was elected by the iraqi people, they are entirely dependent on the U.S. largesse (both financially and militarily)for it's continued survival.

mheslep

Then consider editing your prior post accordingly and remove 'placed'

Why continue to resort to the hyperbole ('entirely')? It simply discredits any point you're after.

The Iraqi's have some 300,000 troops in their Army, much of it trained under US and UK supervision. Iraqi troops have already had occasion to prove themselves independent of any help when they clobbered the Mahdi paramilitary force in Basra, 2008.

Iraq is currently producing ~3 million barrels of oil per day ($210 million per day), likely on its way to 11 million barrels per day within five years, and the US occupation has long since stopped all construction projects in Iraqi oil and gas.

Now, one could argue that this is all insufficient, that it will all fall apart as soon as the last US soldier leaves (they're already out of the cities), and I would still disagree, but at least that's arguable.

Choronzon

Fair enough, your points are well-taken. I admit my hyperbole was foolish, and I'm going to think about editing my previous post, though I think maybe that revision would be unfair—I posted something dumb and I shouldn't get to just erase it and move on.

I guess my real point, hopefully with much less hyperbole, is that we have supported foreign governments which I don't believe was a worthwhile use of our resources. We should've invaded, destroyed as many elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan and fanatical muslims in Iraq as we could, then withdrew and let them rebuild their own countries. If they created another government which supported terrorism, we could just destroy that one again. Basically, the whole "We broke it and now it's our's" idea is what I have an issue with. We CAN just break things, if we want too.

DanP

Dono, more territorial control in Middle East , directing resource flow, coupled with a relative regional stability (compared to the chaos which would have ensued without occupation) seem to me worthwhile goals. Probably someone in the government had the data to decide whatever this was a profitable enterprise.

mheslep

Your call of course. When I post something, er, ill considered, I try to mark it with an 'Edit: revised version'

Yep, a fair argument, that was more or less the old Rumsfeld policy I'd say, and probably that was the US military mindset well before him, e.g. with Tommy Franks. The problem is that doesn't really help US security (Edit: with Afghanistan/Iraq type problems) - the job the US military is hired to do. Remember 911 was carried out by twenty some guys. We don't need Brigade Combat Teams to take out 20 guys. We need BCTs to stabilize and hold territory so that civilization can takeover, because local civilization tends to notice camps of 20 wild eyed guys shooting up things long after troops have gone.

I recognize it is still common for troops to voice a 'get out of our way and let us win' mentally (and sympathize), going all the way back to Patton's words: "I'm a soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight". I think some of the troops sometimes forget the first part of that motto.

BobG

I think that definitely would be the most efficient method of dealing with Afghanistan. Dealing with three major ethnic groups in Iraq, plus numerous other small groups, makes creating a unified government a nearly insurmountable task in Iraq. Afghanistan is worse.

The main ethnic group in Afghanistan is Pashtun (at nearly 40%), but that's divided into two major groups (Durrani and Ghilzai), with each major group being comprised of several major tribes, each. Additionally, you have the Taliban, whose members come from a diversified cross-section of Pashtun tribes (the Taliban is a religious, Islamic, based group rather than having tribal origins). In addition to the Pashtun groups, you have the Tajiks (25%), Hazaras (18%) and Uzbeks (6%), plus several other small groups. With Pahtuns so fragmented into tribes, the Tajiks are the single biggest semi-unified group in Afghanistan and even ruled Afghanistan for a very short time. That was an exception, as Pashtun tribes are almost always the only groups capable of establishing any type of real rule in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a perpetual civil war and will be for decades, maybe even centuries, to come.

What reason do they have to unify, anyway? To run a better poppy trade?

Choronzon

When I was a soldier I certainly did fight where and when I was told, and only then. I'm just a regular old civilian now, so I no longer feel any compunction to keep my opinion private. I also wholeheartedly agree that the military should serve the civilian branch of our government—the military exists to protect the nation, not the other way around.

You're also right, we don't need BCTs to hunt down terrorist cells—they wouldn't be very good at it. Send the BCT's in to destroy any government which aids our enemies, and then make sure that those cells live in constant fear of assassination or missile strikes. I understand it's easier said than done, but I've never seen extensive foreign entanglements as an efficient way to safeguard our interests.