Posted on 06/12/2014 2:30:52 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
‘Was He Worth It?” blared the cover of Time magazine, as if that should be the question Americans ask in light of the release of Bowe Bergdahl after five years of brutal captivity by the Taliban.
No, the question we should be asking is a version of the one Pope Francis made famous in a different context: “Who Are We To Judge?”
Who are we, in the safety of our civilian homes, to judge whether an American soldier captured overseas is worthy of rescue? Who are we to decide whether, somehow, the fact that he was imprisoned for so many years was his fault?
The American public’s reaction to the Bergdahl swap is both stunning and dismaying. Yes, the White House could have handled this more deftly, should have informed those members of Congress who see it as their right to know such things, should have anticipated questions about the constitutionality of releasing prisoners from detention in Guantanamo Bay, and after all these years of ruthless Republican attacks, should have done more to try to minimize the potential damage in advance.
But we’re talking optics here, and courtesies, which are important but not fundamental. What’s fundamental should be the rock-solid belief that American soldiers are to be rescued without judgment, that they should be brought home and dealt with on our soil, not the enemy’s, whatever the circumstances. We redeem our captives.
That’s what Israel does. The contrast between the Israeli public’s reaction to even more lopsided deals with terrorists and what’s occurred here says a lot about who we are and what is missing in our collective sense of self.
This is, in part, because Israel has a military in which most of its citizens participate. America does not.
The obvious comparison with Bergdahl is Gilad Shalit, the Israel Defense Forces soldier also held for five years by a terrorist organization, whose release in 2011 in exchange for more than 1,000 really bad guys set off waves of anguished debate in Israel. The debate, however, was about the deal. It wasn’t about whether the State of Israel should redeem Shalit. And even as the debate raged in the political sphere, 78% of the public supported Shalit’s freedom in varying degrees, whereas a plurality of Americans told one poll that the prisoner exchange for Bergdahl was the wrong thing to do. Period.
Why? As the Forward said in an editorial at the time, Shalit was “everyone’s son.” Nearly everyone in Israel participates in the military, and so nearly every mother and father could identify with Shalit’s long-suffering, loudly determined parents.
Yes, Shalit was defending his homeland while Bergdahl was fighting in a faraway land for a confusing, ill-defined reason. But it’s very possible that if we had compulsory military and community service, if every member of Congress and every leader in the White House with an 18-year-old could potentially see his or her child off to war, we’d be in a lot fewer confusing, ill-defined military campaigns.
And we would have a vehicle to forge national identity, which we desperately need in our increasingly atomized, narcissistic American culture. Mark Silk, a professor of religion at Trinity College, in a blog post for Religion News Service, noted the long, ignoble tradition in this country of designating certain people or groups “un-American” — immigrants in the 19th century, leftists in the 20th century, Muslims in our century. Now even Bowe Bergdahl, home-schooled in Idaho, as all-American as one can get — or so we thought — is considered not American enough to be rescued.
As the conservative commentator Ann Coulter had the nerve to ask: “Why are we doing anything to get this guy back? He’s ashamed to be an American.” As Silk explained, “The metaphysics of Americanism say that we get back our own only when they deserve it. If they don’t deserve it, they’re not our own.”
But those who voluntarily don American military uniforms are our own. They should not be judged, nor should they be abandoned.
No, and AFAIK Shalit never converted to Islam either.
How about his father, mother and commander-in-chief? [chuckle]
No, the question we should be asking is a version of the one Pope Francis made famous in a different context: “Who Are We To Judge?”
Did he really experience "brutal" captivity?"
Was he worth 14 lives lost attempting to rescue him?
Where was the press during those five years?
Should we depend upon the MSM and White House for information, or his colleagues and those with direct knowledge?
It is difficult to judge anything with the lack of information, and the smoke and fog of spin. And, it is difficult to judge with no real source of information on what happened, similar to Benghazi and other scandals.
So, we wait.
We are NOT Bowe and his family....never have or never will be!! IDIOTS!!
Was he worth it is not the issue, it is a distraction.
First, negotiating with terrorists is a horrible idea and never should be done.
Second, The five terrorist we released should never have been released under any circumstances .They should have been executed or spent their lives in jail.
Third, there a many detainees in Gitmo that could have been exchanged for that do not present the risk the five do.
Bergdahl is a traitor. So is the man who swapped him for 5 Islamicist fellow travelers.
No, we are not.
What a pile of pap. The real question is not should we have taken him back, it’s whether we should have payed the price we did. The answer to that is no.
This is a terrible comparison. Israel's lopsided prisoner exchanges are probably tied to two things that aren't a factor in the U.S.:
1. Israel has compulsory military service for its citizens. Even worse, they have exemptions for large segments of the population -- including a disproportionate number of those who have lived in settlements that have been the subject of so much contention over there. If the Israeli government didn't move mountains to recover every prisoner held by the Palestinians, the country would probably collapse.
2. Israel is a collectivist, Marxist country in many respects. It is so different from the U.S. that it really shouldn't be compared to us here. A more appropriate comparison would be to European countries with leftist parliamentary governments. Those countries would probably act the same way as Israel when it comes to "prisoner exchanges" like this.
Good question. I'm prior military, lost several close friends in the war on terror, with my son active duty, and my father a former POW. I'd say that gives me the right to an informed opinion on a deserter. Many (most?) of us on FR are prior military or have close relatives in the service. We judge because we have been there - without desertion, without treason, and without unnecessarily endangering our units.
We do not raise our kids with the idea that all moral choices are equally valid, from heroism and fidelity to treason and homosexuality. We raise our kids with values, for most of us biblical values, and Bergdahl's conduct does not measure up to what we ourselves did when we were bored with duty, or when we were unsure about a leadership decision. Bergdahl's conduct does not measure up to what we would want our children and grandchildren to recognize as acceptable.
We are humans, endowed by God with a sense of right and wrong, and tasked by God with teaching our children the difference between good and evil. That gives us the right and the duty to judge reprehensible conduct.
American soldier captured
American soldier deserted (fixed)
Great post, Sir.
The main problem I see with this editorial is that it engages the matter on the ground that The Regime has chosen. I listened to SecDef Hagel testifying before the Armed Services Committee yesterday. As each Democrat began questioning, the opening remark related to never leaving a soldier behind. It was so noticeable, that I began to comment “DRINK!!” on the Live Thread when I heard it.
I believe we simply let that alone. There is nothing to be gained, at this point, by arguing the merits of whether or not Bergdahl was worthy. That time WILL come. If we have that discussion now, we are taking the bait that The Regime has thrown out in order to diffuse the prime issue that we KNOW to be of urgent concern.
How did the five Taliban go from being on the “never release” list to a year’s all expense sojourn in Qatar? THAT is the question that must be answered first.
Along with the way that Obama broke a law he had signed in order to make the swap.
NONE is above the law, or all are.
“...should have informed those members of Congress who see it as their right to know such things...”
See it as their right? It’s a law.
And Israel was foolish to trade 1,000 terrorists for a single soldier. That puts all the power in the hands of a kidnapper - I kidnap one of your guys, you give me 1,000 people back. Who in their right mind would agree to that deal?
I don’t think this sleeper jihadist is me. I’ve never deserted, nor have I ever been a moslem idiot.
Gilad was actively abducted.
Bowe walked off.
Hmm... Writer misses that fact.
Writer needs to go offer themselves as a hostage, see what happens.
To: 2ndDivisionVet
No, and AFAIK Shalit never converted to Islam either.
2 posted on 6/12/2014 5:31:41 AM by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Olog-hai
How about his father, mother and commander-in-chief? [chuckle
Are suggesting that the CIC has ever been anything else?
Hello.
Is that to me or someone else?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.