Hacker News Reader

> people died while searching for Bergdahl while off-duty... so how that gets attributed to his search I have no idea

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.'

Only have to take leave for weekends in certain situations, like if you're taking Friday and Monday off and will be out of the local area the entire time.

> Only have to take leave for weekends in certain situations, like if you're taking Friday and Monday off and will be out of the local area the entire time.

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!

I think you're mixing up the concepts of leave, liberty and duty. Libo can be secured without you being on duty; you can't leave the base or do other things when liberty is secured, but you're not on duty just because liberty is secured.

Even if no soldiers perished in the search for Bergdahl, it clearly was a dangerous, hostile environment. The planned 20-mile trip back to FOB Sharana wasn't just a day hike, and Bergdahl was either a fool or indifferent to the dangers it posed to both him and the individuals who would come looking for him.

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing it was anything other than pure stupidity or mental illness - Bergdahl included.

I am not going to defend Bergdahl. At all. What he did was stupid, reckless and negligent. But the guy spent five pretty hellish years as a Taliban captive, is going to get drummed out of the Army unceremonious as his best-case scenario, and is going to wear this stigma the rest of his life. He has certainly suffered for what he's done. I don't think it's necessary to make up things to make what he did seem worse than it was, because it was already an incredibly wrong thing for him to have done. And as far as I can tell, the evidence that anyone was killed as result of what he did just isn't there.

>It's sad how politicized this has become.

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.

You don't really have a good mental picture of how your political opponents think -- you're just running them as stereotype models and arguing with the stereotypes.

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.

Disliking deserters or freeing Taliban prisoners really isn't a partisan issue. Where I take issue was the immediate media firestorm created not 24 hours after his release was announced. We were bombarded with stories describing soldier deaths (that are now thought to be incorrect) attributed to his desertion and reminders that we "used to shoot" them. We're talking about a man that, either through mental illness or a legitimate desire to try and improve the operations of the army, walked away from the (relative) safety of his comrades and was held for FIVE years by the enemy. Yes he endangered his fellow soldiers lives, yes he may have deserted his post, and yes he may have been disillusioned with the army at the time. Is that worth throwing his life away and spitting on his grave? If I'm a prospective soldier, I'd like to think the military has my back in these situations.

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.

This 2012 Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings (linked earlier by BryantD) provides relevant context from nearly two years before Bergdahl was released: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-pris...

Republicans are not my political opponents. I lean Republican on most issues, including social issues like gun control, abortion, and marriage.

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.

I don't remember George W. Bush being given credit for anything by Democrats. The "Republicans are obstructionists" argument is just so silly.

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 don't remember George W. Bush being given credit for anything by Democrats. The "Republicans are obstructionists" argument is just so silly.

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.

I remember well. The Iraq Resolution had resounding support among the public, as well. One act of bipartisanship doesn't prove your point -- but I suspect that "we were capitulating to the Bush administration" is a better post-hoc rationalization among the Democratic base than is "we agreed with the Iraq war."

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...

>I don't remember George W. Bush being given credit for anything by Democrats. The "Republicans are obstructionists" argument is just so silly.

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.

It does matter that we gave up five Taliban commanders for him, if you're interested in winning the war. The president should have weighed the costs and benefits -- among the costs could be this wacky idea that soldiers will abandon unpopular soldiers and call it desertion if Bowe weren't brought home (seriously, why this convoluted hypothetical? Such a conspiracy, if it were to happen, would hopefully be reported and punished).

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.