The Case Against Bowe Bergdahl


“The U.S. Army is the biggest joke the world has to laugh at. It is the army of liars, backstabbers, fools and bullies. I am ashamed to be an American. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting”. These were the words written by Bowe Bergdahl to his family on June 27th 2009, three days before he deserted his post in Afghanistan and into the hands of the Taliban.

Fast forward five years to May 31st as news headlines broke informing the public that President Barack Obama just traded five high-ranking jihadis held in Guantanamo for one American soldier, Bowe Bergdahl. Standing in the Rose garden alongside the President, Bob Bergdahl, Bowe’s father, rejoiced upon hearing the news by reciting the Koran. He stated, “Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Rahim”, which means “In the name of Allah, most Gracious, most Compassionate”.

As Bob praised Allah next to the President in the Rose garden and news resurfaced of Bowe’s June 27th letter claiming outright hatred for the United States, one has to question why this adminstration decided to go ahead with the release of five high-level Taliban members in a dangerous transgressions of longstanding U.S. policy. That policy, up until May 31st, was against negotiating with terror groups.

“If you negotiate here”, states the Chairman of the Intelligence committee Mike Rogers,”you’ve sent a message to every Al-Qaeda group in the world – btw, some who are holding U.S. hostages today – that there is now value in that hostage in a way that they didn’t have before”.

The precedent this “negotiation” sets for the future is truly dangerous. Moreover, the legality of this issue falls upon the lap of the President of the United States. Barack Obama directly broke the law in this negotiation as he never informed congress, which by law, the President must do 30 days before any deal is made.

President Obama violated a fundamental premise of American National Security which has both a morale and strategic rationale: that we do not negotiate with terrorists.

The morale and strategic rationale used by the adminstration was dismissed under the guise of exigent circumstances. The adminstration claims that it didn’t have time to notify congress of the deal and therefore acted without any strategic rationale and without the 30-day notification law. According to Susan Rice “There was reason to be concerned [Bergdahl’s] life could have been at risk…we didn’t have 30 days”.

Another question rises from this justification: How can exigency be justified when Bergdahl has spent the past five years with the Taliban? It wasn’t exigent then?

The answer, the adminstration struck a deal with the emir of Qatar and in Obama’s own words, “was instrumental for brokering a deal” acting as an intermediary in the negotiations. The five released Taliban insurgents, under a condition of the deal, are not allowed to leave Qatar for a period of one year.

What this amounts to is the President relying upon the government of Qatar to protect U.S. National Security in regards to keeping these five terrorists under control and from returning to the battlefield.

Relying on a foreign government such as Qatar is absolutely absurd and one doesn’t have to look far to affirm such idiocy. Gen. James L. Jones, who served as Obama’s national security adviser until November 2010 noted in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” that previously released Taliban prisoners had returned to the battlefield. That is common sense.

Given the high-level rank of the five Taliban leaders, it will simply be a matter of time until they are reunited with the Taliban and back on the field fighting Bergdahl’s “fellow” troops. “Fellow” troops meaning the soldiers who are speaking out against Bergdahl by shedding light on the truth of the actions the night he disappeared.

Actions, when taken together with the emails sent three days before his disappearance, prove premeditation on behalf of Bergdhal to knowingly and willingly desert his platoon during a time of war.

Words by the men who served with Bergdahl must be heard, such as former Pfc. Jose Baggett. Baggett states, “he [Bergdahl] was there to protect us and instead he decided to defer from America and go and do his own thing. I don’t know why he decided to do that, but we spent so much of our resources and some of those resources were soldiers’ lives”.

Baggett is not alone in his statements, as reported surprisingly by Jake Tapper of CNN, many soldiers who served with Bergdahl are speaking up. At this point, the American public must listen as these soldiers stories of Bergdahl slowly begin to leak out and continue to unfold.

In the meantime, when former Sergeant Matt Vierkant, who served with Bergdahl states, “I don’t understand why we’re trading prisoners at Gitmo for somebody who deserted during a time of war, which is an act of treason” we must listen, for he speaks volumes on behalf of the majority of Americans concerns.