‘Serial’ Season 2 Lets Bowe Bergdahl Tell His Side of Afghan Story
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
My perspective: he's lying like crazy to get an AWOL charge (intended to return) rather than a desertion charge. The first might be a dishonorable discharge, the latter prison time.
There are several reasons his story doesn't add up -- the most glaring one is the assertion that this wacky plan was the only way he knew to get the attention of a general officer. All soldiers know about writing their congressman, and Bergdahl in particular seems to be pretty wordly and would have heard about this avenue. Writing your congressman would result in a huge shitstorm for the higher levels. It is a formal step that is taken seriously, believe me, I've had to write formal responses to congressional liason offices.
Second, his emails to his parents (which are already public) hint at much more than loyalty for his fellow soldiers in the face of poor leadership. He had concerns about US policy, culture -- I'm not sure how talking to a general officer and blowing the whistle would have made him feel better.
I'll add, as others had, it's possible that his chain of command failed in some regard -- and it's very likely that he was exposed to at least one really bad leader during his time, especially at the NCO level. I also can see how someone like him was an outcast in his unit. He was into ballet, he hung out with the Afghans more than he did his own unit -- etc. Infantry platoons aren't really models of tolerance and inclusion in some regards. It's a rough life in general.
But -- and this is the important point -- there's an oath involved with military service, and it matters even in the case of bad experiences. This is really, really important when you go to sleep in the middle of a hostile desert and you trust that the person guarding you is doing his duty. I think those without military experience might be thinking that all of the veterans who react to this are just proud of the esprit de corps and have some sort of ethical blindspot -- like Nathan Jessup in "A Few Good Men." In truth, the idea of a soldier abandoning his unit like this is unforgivable because it's a matter of betraying a fundamental idea, which is that even if you personally hate the guts of one of your fellow soldiers, you risk your life for him because that's the only way you might all survive the deployment.
I spent a lot of time deployed just hoping that I wouldn't mess up something important and get someone killed. The notion that there is any justification for deliberately abandoning your unit is tough to swallow. I'm going to see what his grievances were from his perspective and then make up my mind -- if he exposes a massacre of civilians, for instance, I might change my mind. I've read his emails to his parents and other articles, though, and it seems in general he thought the other soldiers were assholes, people called him bad names, and he thought that poor judgment was rewarded.
[1] - this being going UA/deserting
I'm really looking forward to hearing the rest of the series, especially the exploration of the command culture at his unit.
If this is just the surface of it all, then this is going to be a fun ride.
Six soldiers were reportedly killed searching for Bergdahl, and five Taliban members were exchanged for him in-trade. None of that is what I'd describe as "fun".
----
And that, of course, was very dangerous to his comrades[1] and irresponsible, and doesn't seem to have achieved his objective, since he was captured by the Taliban along the way. It's probably quite difficult being a commander in a combat zone with special snowflake soldiers like this in the unit.
[1] "Two soldiers died while searching for Bergdahl."
http://www.newsweek.com/serial-season-2-interview-bowe-bergd...
In testimony, two officers part of the search testified saying nobody died.[3]
It's sad how politicized this has become. Even Fox news concedes "The official said the two soldiers in Bergdahl’s unit who died were in a combat outpost that was attacked. The official said it was impossible to prove a link between their deaths and Bergdahl's disappearance. In addition, investigators have determined that some of the other eight soldiers were killed while driving a logistic delivery to the base, and likely would have been doing so regardless of the search." [2, same source]
[1] http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/03/26/these-are-us-soldiers-w...
[2] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/06/two-soldiers-from...
[3] http://www.stripes.com/closing-statements-should-bergdahl-be...
There's not really any such thing as 'off-duty' in the military (which is why servicemen have to take leave for weekend days): one's either at work, or on liberty. But liberty in a combat zone just means, 'eating, showering, reading or sleeping.'
That's because a normal weekend is simply a two-day liberty. But one's not truly off-duty; one's commanding officer may direct one to show up instead (he may cancel leave, too, but that's a different process). When one is out of the area, one is no longer physically able to return to one's work station within a short length of time, which is why leave (vice liberty) is required.
Unlike the civilian world, the military ain't a 9-to-5 job!
Totally agree. I think if there's one thing that shows Republicans refuse to let Obama have credit for anything, it's the prisoner exchange for Bergdahl. The Republicans should've been happy that one of the troops they so fervently idolize was brought home, and they undoubtedly would've been if it was done under the supervision of a Republican administration.
Just as a for example, if you actually paid attention to what they say and how they'd behave, you'd notice that Republicans, while supporting soldiers generally, don't like deserters (and especially deserters who badmouth the Army and the U.S.) specifically, and especially didn't like the idea of trading five high-ranking Taliban commanders for such a person. Their reaction to Bergdahl is therefore not particularly surprising.
Why do you think the rush to destroy this soldiers reputation before the facts were known happened? Why do you think nearly two years after his release today is the first time we've ever heard his voice? It's certainly interesting to consider.
I understand that Bergdahl went AWOL, but I don't think that informed the initial skepticism. Was it even known that he was a suspected desereter until a few days after the fact? Conservative outlets were still talking about how bad the trade was because it represented "negotiating with terrorists" (even though the Taliban is not a terrorist organization) and was 5:1, until one of the members of Bergdahl's old unit went to the media with the desertion story, iirc.
IMO the reaction was driven exclusively by the political expedience of stoking hostility for Obama. That's how politics works -- you never let your enemy score a point if you can help it. It's sad because there was every reason that Bergdahl's release should've been a major celebratory point for the Republicans, even if he was a deserter.
The argument against Obama is that he was eager to empty Gitmo of the most dangerous prisoners -- the ones that other nations wouldn't take, and who therefore hurt his chances of closing the base -- and he thought that this would be a win-win: get a soldier home, get rid of five top Taliban commanders, who could complain?
In order to make it work, he had a press conference in the Rose Garden where he acted like Bergdahl was a hero, and then he sent Susan Rice to Sunday morning talk shows where she said he "served with honor and distinction." This is a lie; he was hoping people would move on.
Those of us in the Army had been following the story earlier, and we knew that it was very probable he was a deserter. That story eventually came out as military prosecutors didn't just sweep it all under the rug.
Now the argument has become "well, we don't care what he did, we'll move heaven and earth to get a soldier home." Should he be guilty of desertion, I think that's an unprecedented and indefensible decision.
Veterans find it infuriating that Susan Rice would use the term "honor and distinction" and then qualify it later along with the idea that all soldiers have honor and are distinguished. Here's why: it's basically saying that you don't really care what soldiers actually do, you only care about the appearance of supporting them.
In that sense, it was the Obama administration who propped up a soldier "no matter what," which is what you accuse Republicans of doing with your disgusting "one of the troops they so fervently idolize" remark. Some people aren't so cynical with their support of the troops, but I don't expect you to understand.
I'm not sure how much you remember the Bush administration, but the Democrats were infuriatingly compliant during those years. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
What's happening now with the whole "you can pry the US government from my cold, dead hands" mentality of the Republican party is a completely different thing.
The actual question is: how did Democrats see their role as the opposition party? Did they think it was their job to find common ground with the majority party, or did they dig in and fight as hard as they could?
Luckily we had newspapers back then:
2001, post-election: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/28/news/28iht-tube_ed3_.html
2005, post-election: http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/51667-democrats-united...
What about the troop surge in Iraq (which was successful)? They tried to block it: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16579285/ns/politics/t/senate-oppo...
Robert Gates later wrote that he overheard Obama and Clinton joking about how their opposition was purely political: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rober...
Cool, I'm not taking about that, and I'm not making that argument, at least not insofar as it excludes Democrats or other political parties. Most politicians are obstructionists, because appearances are worth much more in politics than tangible improvement. I make this statement as a general principle of politics, not constrained to any particular party or even any particular political system. It's true in both corporate and governmental politics.
>Now the argument has become "well, we don't care what he did, we'll move heaven and earth to get a soldier home." Should he be guilty of desertion, I think that's an unprecedented and indefensible decision.
I think it makes sense to bring our people home, even if they're accused of crimes and have to face court martial in the US, as Bergdahl may. It benefits the soldier's morale if there is a well-founded belief that the U.S. will fight to get back every captured soldier, no questions asked (at least until the soldier arrives home). Without this practice, it'd be easy for a unit to abandon someone they dislike in enemy territory, claim he was a deserter, and condemn him to POW status as long as he can live it out.
>Veterans find it infuriating that Susan Rice would use the term "honor and distinction" and then qualify it later along with the idea that all soldiers have honor and are distinguished. Here's why: it's basically saying that you don't really care what soldiers actually do, you only care about the appearance of supporting them.
I understand the frustration, but please be aware this is a macro-level thing, and as stated above, in politics, it is all about appearances. That can't and won't change.
Soldiers morale is also hurt when a deserter is given high honors from a disinterested and cynical administration.
You seem to think that "macro-level political thing" (a concept I'm perfectly capable of understanding, even if I'm a dumb vet) is an excuse for bad decisions -- or maybe you're so cynical that you don't think it's worth caring about. I disagree.
What you get is probably going to be severely skewed to his point of view.
If you cast your mind back, you'll recall a long sequence (almost a whole episode) where they tried to recreate the drive from the library to the Best Buy, thus poking holes in Syed's claim that he couldn't have travelled that distance in that time. You can't say, based on that (and other episodes that were pro-prosecution) that the series was pro-prosecution. I thought it still finished with a lot of doubt on both sides.
The Rolling Stone article tries to act like Bowe snapped under stress, which is not at all what he's saying in Serial. He'd only been in Afghanistan for 3 months, and the Serial podcast said that he hadn't seen any real action yet (Rolling Stone talks about combat he was in).
The vast majority of his complaints are par for the course in the Army -- mass punishment and the constant feeling like the higher command is stringing you along. It's, like, what the Army's all about. As you gain in rank and your perspective widens, you end up being the person who makes some PFC spend 5 days guarding an MRAP, and you just shift your hatred to the next level up the chain. Bitching about the higher headquarters that is just one level above your visibility is what people do in the Army.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure it was daylight the next morning when they spotted him in the desert.
I would expect that Bergdahl's narrative will be examined more critically in subsequent episodes.
State of mind for him was to expose corruption, again, laudable. From his narrative he attributes previous deaths in his unit to said corruption. Life is at stake.
So kid decides to trigger the most extensive exception in the active theater, attracting the immediate attention of his unit, area command, the air force, the navy, and the marines.
Now the reveal is the narrative is kid quixote but the conclusion--after exploring the why--is going to hinge on the critical question: was it worth it?
He survived. He has the stage he sought after. What was the message he needs to deliver?
Spoiler: Probably not, Berghdal is still active duty in Texas.
One of the functions and outcomes of great investigative reporting is to find facts that aren't already visible. The first series of Serial apparently resulted in Syed being granted a new hearing—his post-conviction hearings were re-opened by the appeals court last month, and he will get a new day in court some time soon.
There's a chance that the reporting in this new series of episodes might result in a similar change in outcome or circumstance.