Resolved that the deal to free Bowe Bergdahl was unjustified.

Boiled down to essence, Bergdahl's emancipation musters into opposition two celebrated principles of US Foreign policy: No soldier left behind vs. No negotiating with terrorists. Seen this way, the Bergdahl exchange is easy to justify because the former axiom is fundamental to the morale and organization of America"s hard-pressed, underpaid, all-volunteer, democratic fighting forces while the latter principle is mostly propaganda. I expected Pro"s argument to generally rely on the dangers of dealing with terrorists but Pro has wisely forsworn this popular platitude so we can focus on the case at hand. WAS BERGDAHL WORTHY? Pro states in answer 5 that Bergdahl "left his camp to allegedly flee dangerous or unpleasant duty." However popular such characterizations may be in the media, all official accounts offer a very different perspective. Bergdahl"s ambition was special forces, he was trying to be a super soldier. By all accounts, Bergdahl was the first to volunteer for extra duty, constantly training and studying to be a better soldier. He was the kind of guy who says, "good grief" instead of "god damn." When the other members of his platoon were drinking or playing video games, Bergdahl was reading the field manuals. He wasn't looking to get away from threat, rather he thought his platoon should be engaging the enemy directly rather than handing out candy to kids, pissing off the locals, and stepping on IEDs on the way home. Two days before he walked away, Bergdahl's closest friend in the platoon was killed and the next day his CO"s seemed more concerned with uniform violations than with preventing further deaths. His intention on the night of his capture was to walk 18 miles to the commanders at FOB Sharana to call attention to what he felt was dangerously inept leadership. He knew he'd be in trouble, but he thought of himself as taking one for team. [1] Both DoD Chief investigator General Kenneth Dahl"s and the Pentagons" lead debriefer Terrence Russell"s confirmed that the Army accepts Bergdahl's statement of intent as honest, however stupid. In short, he snapped. And not for the first time. In 2006, Bergdahl joined the Coast Guard, but was discharged during basic for "mental status significant for situational anxiety." The discharge required a psych evaluation before re-enlistment but Army recruiters claim to have missed this recommendation.[2] In May of 2015, Bergdahl was diagnosed with Schizotypal Personality Disorder. [3] But if losing control after seeing a buddy die counts as "misbehavior before the enemy," I imagine half the soldiers in war have merited life sentences. As for the charge of desertion, this seems unlikely to stick. Desertion is technically 31 days of AWOL but Bergdahl never had the opportunity to amend his AWOL status, as is confirmed by Bergdahl's two proforma promotions to Sergeant while in captivity. Indeed, General Dahl"s recommendation was that Bergdahl receive no more than a special (misdemeanor) court martial and thought any jail time would be inappropriate for Bergdahl's infraction. So even if Bergdahl is convicted in August, his sentence seems likely to overturned on appeal. INCENTIVIZING HOSTAGE-TAKERS Pro"s argument accepts on faith that Bergdahl"s captors will be necessarily incentivized to try to capture more Americans. Possibly, but the Haqqani have been hit hard in the two years since Bergdahl's release and the number of US citizens within the Taliban's reach is a small well-armed fraction compared to 2009. Holding captives and negotiating for their release is a dangerous business, particularly in the teeth of the US"s defensive and intelligence capabilities and at least as likely to accomplish the captor"s death as achieving a reward. History suggests that rogue insurgencies like the Taliban, like other types of terrorist or criminal organizations, are unpredictable at best. We can only say with certainty that the Taliban hasn't yet captured any additional Americans since Bergdahl's release and hope it stays that way. FIVE for ONE Pro has characterized the Bergdahl exchange as unbalanced and suggested a better deal might have been achieved at an earlier or later point in time. The facts suggest otherwise. The Taliban"s original offer made on Christmas Day 2009, six months after Bergdahl"s disappearance, was $1 million and 21 named detainees with a variety of political connections to Taliban groups.[4] This offer was never officially acknowledged. A year later, during initial peace negotiations in Munich, Bergdahl"s release was on the table as a good faith gesture in exchange for 6 Gitmo and a number of diplomatic concessions. By February 2011, both the US"s chief negotiator, Richard Holbrooke, and the most senior of the Gitmo 6, Awal Gul were dead and the hopes for a deal faded until early 2014. [5] By that time, the Haqqanis were under considerable pressure in North Waziristan, their leader and the leader of the Taliban were dead along with Mullah Sangeen, the commander in charge of Bergdahl"s captivity. Increasingly motivated to dispose of Bergdahl as a security burden they sent new videos to US officials who were alarmed at the obvious decline in Bergdahl's well-being and a new round of negotiations began. So, there is little reason to suppose that a better offer could be made and the final settlement (5 for 1 with no other concessions) was the best offer of any put on the table. Since the Haqqani Network"s presence in North Waziristan was overrun and shattered by Operation Zarb-e-Azb beginning two weeks after Bergdahl's release [6], there is little reason to suppose Bergdahl would have survived his captor"s defeat. While on the subject of the Haqqani Network"s defeat, let"s consider the relative value of the Bergdahl exchange in terms of military intelligence. All of the Gitmo 5 surrendered or were captured during the early months of the War in Afghanistan and held incommunicado and interrogated for 12+ years at Gitmo. Although their intelligence value will never be known, we can assume that further detainment would not be likely to produce new, useful information or that they can offer any information of military value to their former comrades. The same can't be said of Bergdahl. During Bergdahl"s September 2015 preliminary hearing, the Pentagon"s lead debriefer Terrence Russell testified,""The intelligence debriefers, the SERE [Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape] psychologists, the FBI agents, the other debriefers, everybody remarked on the quality of information that Sergeant Bergdahl was providing," He added that Bergdahl rigorously catalogued his memories of captivity because "he knew that he would be an important source of information for the intelligence community and for special operations forces."[7] Although he was unable to speak, Bergdahl requested pen and paper and began supplying intel to the Special Forces team that rescued him on the helicopter ride to Bagram AFB. [5] Bergdahl"s complete report to chief investigator Major General Kenneth Dahl numbered 371 pages. [7] Remember that Bergdahl had escaped twice, met scores of his captors in person and was careful to note small details like the names of local sports teams on children's baseball caps. Nobody will confirm whether Bergdahl's intelligence was employed in the field but a remarkable coincidence of timing ought to be noted: on the same day that Bergdahl completed his intelligence debriefing in Landstuhl, Germany, the CIA opened a new and sustained campaign of drone attacks in the tiny region of North Waziristan by targeting a Haqqani commander and six Haqqani militants. Three days later, Pakistan launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb, wreaking havoc on the Haqqani Network and killing more than 3000 militants over the course of the campaign. How much, if any, of Bergdahl"s report was employed in these attacks is classified, but close observers are quick to point out that the timing suggests that the US was inflicting an immediate and heavy vengeance. [4] Although Taliban propaganda was able to claim short term advantage in the 5 for 1 trade, we should also consider the value of demonstrating US commitment to a single individual and how that speaks of democracy"s advantages to a soldier fighting for authoritarian warlords. Lastly, let's remember that the Gitmo 5, indeed most of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners are more harmful to US interests in prison then they are free. The United Nations, European Union, OAS, Amnesty International, Human Rights have all condemned the detention camps at Gitmo as an illegal violation of human rights and demanded its closure. Around the world Guantanamo is characterized as a concentration camp, a war crime, and the number one recruiting tool for radical jihadists. Barack Obama was twice elected with a mandate to close Gitmo. Even if the US had not released the Gitmo 5 in 2014 they would likely be released anyway in the the next few years. They were never charged with any crimes and no branch of government was willing to recognize jurisdiction over them. With the Bergdahl exchange, we got something in exchange for nothing, a political albatross. By most responsible reports, Bergdahl was a good and faithful American soldier, worthy of the price who temporarily snapped, paid a terrible price, and is now unfairly and inaccurately slandered for political gain. The exchange was sufficient, necessary, urgently required, and more balanced than popularly appreciated [1]https://serialpodcast.org... [2]https://serialpodcast.org... [3]https://serialpodcast.org... [4]http://www.webcitation.org... [5]https://serialpodcast.org... [6]https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [7]http://www.news...