US Government negotiates with Taliban

[New Armarzia]

Never been a huge fan of President Obama, specifically for the killing of American citizens by drone strike, but I agree with his actions in this situation. Members of the military are not suppose to be left behind and this man wasn't thanks to this deal. While the trade doesn't seem 100% fair, it is completely reasonable...five guys who have been locked away for quite some time for an American citizen, sounds alright to me.

I do think the sergeant in question should be investigated as the whole ordeal surrounding his capture seems very questionable and if he is proven guilty of something he should be punished accordingly, but even if he is guilty this was still the right course of action as I feel it is more important to stand behind those who serve in the military then aggressively standing behind opposing our enemies.

[Hollorous]

My own observations on this subject:

1. The Taliban are not a terrorist organization; they are a former government driven into exile who are fighting a protracted guerrilla war against the government who replaced them. Yes, they were allied with Al-Qaeda; but that fact alone does not make them a terrorist group.
   
   
2. It is traditional that wars end with an exchange of prisoners. This action can be seen as just such an exchange, rather than a "hostage exchange" or "ransom" paid in response to the taking of "hostages".
   
   
3. There is no basis for claiming that this exchange places Americans anywhere in the world at risk: Sgt. Bergdahl was a prisoner of war, and as such was taken in the course of normal military operations. He was NOT taken by the Taliban for the purpose of extracting concessions from the US; thus his release (again) falls within the normal range of circumstances surrounding end-of-war prisoner exchanges.
   
   
   1. As a further point, the released Taliban officials will spend the next year in Qatar under house arrest; they won't return to Afghanistan until after American forces have effectively pulled back into a full support role.
      
      
   2. Further, it's unlikely that their return will do anything to boost the Taliban war effort. These are all people who were captured right at the start of the Afghan War, in 2001. If the Taliban has lasted this long (i.e., nearly 13 years) without them, it's not like they're going to have much value any more.
4. Prisoner exchanges historically occur irrespective of whether those taken prisoner were captured in combat or were captured after desertion; historically, the US has not distinguished between prisoners when it comes to negotiating their release on the basis of whether or not the "deserve" to be released.
   
   
   1. On this last point, the Pentagon has not ruled out the possibility that Sgt. Bergdahl will face charges at some point down the line.
5. Most of the other observations made in the right-wing media in this case are utter drivel/bullshit. Specifically:
   
   
   1. Bergdahl looked pretty ill in the video of his prisoner exchange. Specifically, he blinked heavily in the light, grimaced in pain, and appeared thin and emaciated. My suspicion is that he probably has some serious chronic illness (such as cancer), but the exact details remain to be seen.
      
      
   2. I don't find his father's decision to grow a bear or learn Pashtun strange, disloyal, or anything else of that sort. FOX News and its idiot commentators can fondle my fundament.
6. Ideally, the Afghan War needs to end with a peace settlement that will end the fighting and return the Taliban to Afghan society as a political force, rather than encouraging them to continue fighting as an insurgent army. Otherwise, there isn't going to be a lasting peace and our long-term success in Afghanistan will remain in doubt for many years to come.
   
   As the old saying goes, "You can only make peace with your enemies". How in the fuck ELSE was this war supposed to end, if not in a peace agreement between the US and the Taliban?!?!?
   
   
7. This entire teapot tempest smacks of "Obamafication" — namely, the tendency of right-wingers to condemn as illegal, immoral, and godless something they would totally support if it were being done by a Republican President. I'm sorry, but this whole new "scandal" leaves me completely bemused at its utter idiocy.

Regarding point #6, I think generally the American public has the opinion that the Taliban ought to be exterminated (as an organization, if not the human beings that comprise it), so things like "talking" and ending the war through a peace treaty seem like signs of weakness, especially when the Taliban are consistently labeled "terrorists", when their atrocities are consistently reported, and when they're basically constantly equated with the men who destroyed the World Trade Center. This is just my general impression of things. I agree that a peace treaty and the politicization of the Taliban is probably the best and only likely method (aren't ex-Taliban members in the current Afghan government already anyway?), but that's not how the war has been sold. Unlike with Vietnam, the idea of a concluding peace agreement hasn't really been made prominent.

[Ashmoria]

Never been a huge fan of President Obama, specifically for the killing of American citizens by drone strike, but I agree with his actions in this situation. Members of the military are not suppose to be left behind and this man wasn't thanks to this deal. While the trade doesn't seem 100% fair, it is completely reasonable...five guys who have been locked away for quite some time for an American citizen, sounds alright to me.

I do think the sergeant in question should be investigated as the whole ordeal surrounding his capture seems very questionable and if he is proven guilty of something he should be punished accordingly, but even if he is guilty this was still the right course of action as I feel it is more important to stand behind those who serve in the military then aggressively standing behind opposing our enemies.

exactly.

those who oppose the president have to get out of the habit of not considering each action independently of that dislike. it is shameful to suggest that any US soldier ought to be left to rot in captivity.

[Ashmoria]

Regarding point #6, I think generally the American public has the opinion that the Taliban ought to be exterminated (as an organization, if not the human beings that comprise it), so things like "talking" and ending the war through a peace treaty seem like signs of weakness, especially when the Taliban are consistently labeled "terrorists", when their atrocities are consistently reported, and when they're basically constantly equated with the men who destroyed the World Trade Center. This is just my general impression of things. I agree that a peace treaty and the politicization of the Taliban is probably the best and only likely method (aren't ex-Taliban members in the current Afghan government already anyway?), but that's not how the war has been sold. Unlike with Vietnam, the idea of a concluding peace agreement hasn't really been made prominent.

I suppose youre right but we have been there for more than a dozen years and we haven't destroyed them yet. we've spent enough on this war, time to call it a victory and go home.

[Geilinor]

Regarding point #6, I think generally the American public has the opinion that the Taliban ought to be exterminated (as an organization, if not the human beings that comprise it), so things like "talking" and ending the war through a peace treaty seem like signs of weakness, especially when the Taliban are consistently labeled "terrorists", when their atrocities are consistently reported, and when they're basically constantly equated with the men who destroyed the World Trade Center. This is just my general impression of things. I agree that a peace treaty and the politicization of the Taliban is probably the best and only likely method (aren't ex-Taliban members in the current Afghan government already anyway?), but that's not how the war has been sold. Unlike with Vietnam, the idea of a concluding peace agreement hasn't really been made prominent.

I suppose youre right but we have been there for more than a dozen years and we haven't destroyed them yet. we've spent enough on this war, time to call it a victory and go home.

I agree. The British learned during the Troubles that you can't eradicate these organizations. Negotiation needs to happen if you want the conflict to end.

[The Batorys]

Other countries do not exist to please the USA.

Mossadegh was the legitimate, democratically elected leader of Iran. His economic policy was none of the USA's business. It was morally completely indefensible to overthrow him. Just because I love my country doesn't mean I'm going to try to excuse our fuckups.

I'm thinking maybe we were behind the scenes also trying to convince the Brits to come back and take over as puppet master of Iran to be honest. America really has never been happy about policing the world or projecting our hegemony.

No other countries don't exist purely to please the USA but contract law does exist to be honored. Plus Cold War issues no doubt complicate all this calculus to no end.

A contract is only worth as much as the court willing to uphold it.

And a contract coerced, or signed in bad faith, is worth nothing, and can be rightfully ignored.

As for the USA not being happy about policing the world or projecting our hegemony... well, we keep doing it, so we must be happy about it to some extent, though it's more complex now than it was during the Cold War, and lots of decisions we made during the Cold War have come back to bite us.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

lol I love how this has turned into a total witchhunt of some guy who did the same as everyone else has but got taken prisoner for it.

You never fucked off your job/school for a bit? Give it a try, it's great. You probably wouldn't have done anything useful anyway.

[United States of Devonta]

you know 70 years ago he would have been shot as a coward

Yeah, 70 years ago we seen black service men lynched on trees... Whats your point?

[Allet Klar Chefs]

I agree. The British learned during the Troubles that you can't eradicate these organizations.

That was after learning in Malaya that they could, so pfft, whatever.

Who even is the Taliban nowadays, seriously. It's been, what, 13 and a bit years of occupation now? Something like that? Imagine all the stuff that isn't the same as 13 years ago. Some of you probably weren't even born yet.

[The Batorys]

Ah, I was unaware of that! That definitely sounds intense, and it makes more sense; I always find it hard to believe when one side is made out to be pure evil, after all.

Even so, Llamalandia, we don't have the right to dictate who others need to vote for in other countries anymore than we do in our own cointry.

Yeah kinda. Of course no offense but I'd of told german voters to f right the hell off electing that hitler fellow and we did in fact do that eventually, just far too late. It's fine to elect whoever you want but obviously countries are going to disagree about leaders and even demand change. When the needed change is great enough it may even necessitate more direct interference. I mean its like if Afghanistan had say elected bin laden instead of karsai. Sure it would be democratic decision but not one any sane sensible person would ever feel obligated to respect.

Breaking an unethical contract is not the same as committing genocide and turning the country into a dictatorship.

Besides which, Afghanistan couldn't have elected Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden was Saudi Arabian, not Afghan.

The Taliban leader of Afghanistan was Mullah Omar, who took power through civil war, as is common.

[Hollorous]

I suppose youre right but we have been there for more than a dozen years and we haven't destroyed them yet. we've spent enough on this war, time to call it a victory and go home.

I agree. The British learned during the Troubles that you can't eradicate these organizations. Negotiation needs to happen if you want the conflict to end.

I think it comes down to how many Americans see war. The American Civil War and World War II are easily the most popular ones in the public psyche...and they each ended with total capitulation of the enemy. But if you look at the history of war throughout history, total capitulation is actually a rare occurrence. More often, it ends in a treaty/agreement, as a pointless stalemate, or when some limited objective is met.

But I also think that America is generally tired of/disinterested in the Afghan War. As in "those barbarians will never amount to anything, so let's leave and just let them kill each other". Similar to how Iraq was viewed towards the end. So, aside from a few nationalist diehards, the public will to really do anything isn't really there. Honestly, most people couldn't name an actual battle that happened in Afghanistan, who Mullah Omar is, or anything like that. It's treated as an annoying background event unless you have a direct connection to it (i.e. your fighting over there or you know someone who is).

[The Batorys]

My own observations on this subject:

1. The Taliban are not a terrorist organization; they are a former government driven into exile who are fighting a protracted guerrilla war against the government who replaced them. Yes, they were allied with Al-Qaeda; but that fact alone does not make them a terrorist group.
   
   
2. It is traditional that wars end with an exchange of prisoners. This action can be seen as just such an exchange, rather than a "hostage exchange" or "ransom" paid in response to the taking of "hostages".
   
   
3. There is no basis for claiming that this exchange places Americans anywhere in the world at risk: Sgt. Bergdahl was a prisoner of war, and as such was taken in the course of normal military operations. He was NOT taken by the Taliban for the purpose of extracting concessions from the US; thus his release (again) falls within the normal range of circumstances surrounding end-of-war prisoner exchanges.
   
   
   1. As a further point, the released Taliban officials will spend the next year in Qatar under house arrest; they won't return to Afghanistan until after American forces have effectively pulled back into a full support role.
      
      
   2. Further, it's unlikely that their return will do anything to boost the Taliban war effort. These are all people who were captured right at the start of the Afghan War, in 2001. If the Taliban has lasted this long (i.e., nearly 13 years) without them, it's not like they're going to have much value any more.
4. Prisoner exchanges historically occur irrespective of whether those taken prisoner were captured in combat or were captured after desertion; historically, the US has not distinguished between prisoners when it comes to negotiating their release on the basis of whether or not the "deserve" to be released.
   
   
   1. On this last point, the Pentagon has not ruled out the possibility that Sgt. Bergdahl will face charges at some point down the line.
5. Most of the other observations made in the right-wing media in this case are utter drivel/bullshit. Specifically:
   
   
   1. Bergdahl looked pretty ill in the video of his prisoner exchange. Specifically, he blinked heavily in the light, grimaced in pain, and appeared thin and emaciated. My suspicion is that he probably has some serious chronic illness (such as cancer), but the exact details remain to be seen.
      
      
   2. I don't find his father's decision to grow a bear or learn Pashtun strange, disloyal, or anything else of that sort. FOX News and its idiot commentators can fondle my fundament.
6. Ideally, the Afghan War needs to end with a peace settlement that will end the fighting and return the Taliban to Afghan society as a political force, rather than encouraging them to continue fighting as an insurgent army. Otherwise, there isn't going to be a lasting peace and our long-term success in Afghanistan will remain in doubt for many years to come.
   
   As the old saying goes, "You can only make peace with your enemies". How in the fuck ELSE was this war supposed to end, if not in a peace agreement between the US and the Taliban?!?!?
   
   
7. This entire teapot tempest smacks of "Obamafication" — namely, the tendency of right-wingers to condemn as illegal, immoral, and godless something they would totally support if it were being done by a Republican President. I'm sorry, but this whole new "scandal" leaves me completely bemused at its utter idiocy.

I think you've pretty well summed up this whole issue.

[The Batorys]

you know 70 years ago he would have been shot as a coward

Maybe, maybe not. At the end of WWII, we got our soldiers back from Germany and Japan, regardless of the circumstances of their capture.

[Vazdania]

So...what happened to "we don't negotiate with terrorists"?

Lol this.

[The Batorys]

Well yeah sorta. I mean it sounds like basically everyone he's served with is saying the guy took off on his own, I can't recall hearing anyone other than a few politicians defending or praising him. It's a matter of priority. Sure do we want him back if he did desert? Of course! It's a matter of "how badly we want him" basically that's at issue. I mean I'd hate to be asked to try and risk my life saving a man if I knew or had significant probable cause to believe was a deserter.

leaving his base is not the same as deserting. he didn't have a chance to desert, he was captured too quickly.

Also, think about it. Why the fuck would anyone desert in Afghanistan.

I think the chances of him just being an absent-minded idiot are far higher than him deserting in the middle of a hostile country where the only way back to anywhere he'd be comfortable is a US airbase.

[Antarticaria]

Im curious who here actually has a background to understand what has happened and understand a situation a soldier is in by knowing the experiences first hand?

[The Batorys]

lol I love how this has turned into a total witchhunt of some guy who did the same as everyone else has but got taken prisoner for it.

You never fucked off your job/school for a bit? Give it a try, it's great. You probably wouldn't have done anything useful anyway.

I heard he was just taking an unscheduled crap.

The horror.

[Antarticaria]

you know 70 years ago he would have been shot as a coward

and you have grounds to say this why?

[The Batorys]

So...what happened to "we don't negotiate with terrorists"?

Lol this.

Maybe the fact that the Taliban are a deposed government, not a terrorist organization.

Also, how is one supposed to end a war without some negotiation? Even a surrender requires negotiation as per the details.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

So...what happened to "we don't negotiate with terrorists"?

Lol this.

What happened to it? It was literally nothing, ever, except empty Bushian rhetoric that totally fell apart if you thought about it for more than five seconds.

[Geilinor]

My own observations on this subject:

1. The Taliban are not a terrorist organization; they are a former government driven into exile who are fighting a protracted guerrilla war against the government who replaced them. Yes, they were allied with Al-Qaeda; but that fact alone does not make them a terrorist group.

The only thing separating the Taliban from al-Qaeda is that the Taliban committed their atrocities while in government. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-10-12/news/0110120312_1_taliban-fighters-massacres-in-recent-years-mullah-mohammed-omar
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/reports98/afghan/Afrepor0-03.htm#P186_38364That government was only recognized by 3 countries, which did not include the United States.

[The Batorys]

My own observations on this subject:

1. The Taliban are not a terrorist organization; they are a former government driven into exile who are fighting a protracted guerrilla war against the government who replaced them. Yes, they were allied with Al-Qaeda; but that fact alone does not make them a terrorist group.

The only thing separating the Taliban from al-Qaeda is that the Taliban committed their atrocities while in government. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-10-12/news/0110120312_1_taliban-fighters-massacres-in-recent-years-mullah-mohammed-omar
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/reports98/afghan/Afrepor0-03.htm#P186_38364That government was only recognized by 3 countries, which did not include the United States.

Lots of governments have committed massacres.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda are both evil organizations.

However, they are different organizations. They have different leaders, different ethnic makeups, and most importantly, different goals.

The Taliban are the former government of Afghanistan. Yes, they were the government even if they were an incredibly incompetent, evil, abusive, shitty one. They are predominantly Afghan, largely Pashtun, and led by Mullah Omar. Their goal is to reclaim their former position as Afghanistan's government. To do this, of course, they must drive out the USA, topple the current US-backed Afghan government, and defeat other anti-Taliban forces. They would then (mis)rule Afghanistan as they saw fit.

Al Qaeda are a non-governmental, radical muslim fundamentalist organization, and are considered a terrorist group. While, unlike the Taliban, they are truly international in makeup, their members tend to come predominantly from Arab countries, and I believe they're currently led by Zawahiri, an Egyptian, IIRC, though of course they were formerly led by Bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian. Their goal is to drive western, secularist influence out of the middle east and the rest of the Islamic world. They are allied with the Taliban because they see Afghanistan as one front in this larger struggle.

The inability, or refusal, of the USA to grasp distinctions between our enemies, and other groups of people in the world in general, that, while subtle to us, are important to them, has been somewhat a flaw in our foreign policy, and made things harder for us than they would otherwise have to be.

[Alien Space Bats]

... you know 70 years ago he would have been shot as a coward

Actually, I believe we only executed one deserter in the course of the Second World War (which was 70 years ago); and we certainly didn't just leave any POWs in German, Japanese, or Italian hands that we suspected of having deserted; we expected to get back ALL our POWs when the war was over, and we did.

<digs a little further>

In fact, Pvt. Eddie Slovik (executed on January 31st, 1945) is, in fact, the ONLY American deserter to be put to death since the end of the American Civil War, almost 150 years ago. Slovik's execution was approved by Gen. Eisenhower due to the fact that the desertion rate among American forces had begun to tick upward after the ferocity of the Battle of the Bulge, and it was the opinion of Eisenhower and his staff that an example had to be made of someone in order to deter further desertions.

That someone turned out to be Eddie Slovik.

The point is that no similar problem exists today — and that there is indeed no other good reason for executing Sgt. Bergdahl under the present circumstances.

Unless, of course, it is to placate America's right-wing hate machine with blood — substitutional blood, in place of the man the right would REALLY like to kill.

Namely, Barack Obama.

ADDENDUM: 49 death sentences were handed out for desertion in World War II; all but Slovik's were stayed after appeal up the chain of command. The penalty for desertion may well be death, but that's a penalty that pretty much exists only on paper.

[Sjovenia]

Damnit Obama, why would you negotiate with terrorists, but spy on our allies?

Because in the end you have to negotiate. Sometimes its the only way to win.

[Llamalandia]

Here here! And by criticizing the nation we both love, we make it stronger.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing your country's actions if you think they were wrong. Especially if you didn't play a role in the decision or weren't even alive at the time.

Yes, easy to criticize when you weren't the one forced to make them.