Bowe Bergdahl Behaves Before the Enemy

U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will stand trial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.

U.S. Army Gen. Robert Abrams' decision to try Bergdahl on these serious charges has raised a media firestorm. That is understandable for two reasons.

Military law is not just a disciplinary constraint but also a tool in preparing for combat and, once the fight begins, defeating the enemy. Many loudmouths who have never served in the military fail to grasp this fact. I'll expand on this in a moment.

The other reason is President Barack Obama's politicization of Bergdahl's release.

Let's deal with Obama first. A president brings instant and enormous media visibility to an issue. Obama, however, inevitably uses an event as a media opportunity to bash political adversaries, even when bashing may damage essential U.S. institutions. In the case of Bergdahl, he put the fundamentals of military justice at risk.

Bergdahl committed his alleged offenses in June 2009 while serving at Combat Outpost Mest-Malak in Afghanistan's Paktika province. He left his unit, and Taliban fighters captured him. In May 2014, President Obama exchanged five "high-risk" Afghan Taliban terrorists -- the Taliban Five -- for Bergdahl. The terrorists were held in Guantanamo Bay's prison.

Obama welcomed Bergdahl at a White House ceremony, which Bergdahl's parents attended. Obama didn't quite treat Bergdahl as a hero -- thank goodness -- but his meta-message was essentially: "Hey, Bowe's back. His service is honorable enough to rate moving five more prisoners from George W. Bush's Gitmo. So, press corps, can the messy questions."

As I scanned the ceremony's transcript, I wanted to ask the president: "Excuse me, sir. If Bergdahl deserves trial, have you improperly prejudiced the military justice system, which almost always involves investigations by military officers and decisions by commanders to hold a court-martial? Have you tampered with potential military jurors? As commander in chief, you have an institutional responsibility here. You know, sir, good order and discipline?"

Which segues back to the alleged crimes. Desertion is a charge familiar to the general public. Hollywood movies get the gist; the soldier left his duty post and did not intend to return. Misbehavior before the enemy is an obscure charge, one associated with complex circumstances that civilians will rarely encounter. Both charges are serious. Desertion in time of war is punishable by death. For good military reasons, both judicial and strategic, misbehavior before the enemy is punishable by life in prison.

You can find these charges in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs U.S. service members. The military has its own code because military service involves harsh preparation, extraordinary rigors and enormous individual, group and national risks. Combat demands discipline. In violent, chaotic and dangerous circumstances, soldiers must immediately respond to orders and carry them out.

The UCMJ is a disciplinary tool, one vital to Gen. Abrams. Abrams commands U.S. Army Forces Command. He knows that in order to protect the U.S. Constitution, service members give up many of their individual rights. That's why he respects his own soldiers -- his good, disciplined soldiers.

At FORSCOM, Abrams' job is to prepare the Army to win wars. As a person, Bergdahl is a loser. As a soldier, he is a war loser -- a danger to his fellow soldiers and his unit.

"Misbehavior before the enemy" includes endangering the safety of fellow soldiers. The Army alleges that Bergdahl endangered the safety of his unit "by walking away and causing the military to launch 'search and recovery operations.'"

Let's grant that Bergdahl suffered during his five years as a Taliban captive. However, his la-di-da stroll from his duty station put the lives of scores of American soldiers at risk.

Now he has his day in court. Good. Let a jury decide his fate. He's already had his day in the Rose Garden.

Do you remember Lieutenant General Marion Collier Ross, by any chance?

I had to wiki him before it struck a chord.

Third Army Commander.

He spent much of his time at Fort Lewis, though and I rarely got to Fort Lewis.

I believe he and GEN Don Starry had a little tip up over some doctrine...Starry being TRADOC and Ross being at FORSCOM, I believe.

Anyway, I remember him as an upstanding officer, but a little on the, shall we say, "tight-assed" side?

Tended to overlook the "human" aspect of things.

I think most that served around a lot of the GO's know what I mean and those opinions are just that, opinions.

The only GO I ever met during that period that really PO'd me was Crosby Saint.

He was an ass then, still is today.

I dont know much about courts-martial.Did I read somewhere that every juror (or "panel member") must outrank the accused?

True when I was in. The idea was that the court should not be tempted to "create vacancies" for their own promotion.

Prior to WW II, all courts martial consisted solely of officers. One of the "reforms" adopted after the war was to include enlisted men on courts trying enlisted men. The enlisted hated that reform. They felt that "their own" would be tougher on them than an officer would be.

I was once senior officer on a court. An enlisted man had been busted by civilian police on a drug charge. That was also a military offense, so he was hit both ways. (Not double jeopardy. It's two separate offenses.) The enlisted members of the court were strongly against him. He made them look bad.

To make matters worse, the accused worked in ordnance. The last guy you want loading bombs on an airplane is some guy strung out on dope.

I have given your thoughts a lot of thought.

It is apparent to me that you are or were, a commissioned officer.

Be that as it may, and I assure you, I do not disparage that, but it is the nature of the beast to find stuff such as this to rant about.

It is something they are taught, or perhaps is in the water they are served during OCS, or perhaps while at West Point.

Anyway...when I use the GEN, I am writing of a full General with four stars.

Were I to write of a three star general, I would use the term, LTG, which I, and every other career NCO and ossifer, uh, officer, knows is a Lieutenant General, and wears three stars...in whatever manner the current AR 670-1 stipulates or as the Uniform Board has decreed.

A two star is an MG...and so on and so forth.

Were I to address a general officer of any number of stars, I would preface my remark with: "General, is it your orders that...etc, etc.

I would not say: "Damn, Major General, the Lieutenant General that outranks your ass just told me to do...etc,etc", unless I were trying to goad him...which of course crusty old Sergeant Majors have been known to do, particularly when they are addressed as CSM or SGM, rather than the popular "Sarmajor".

They are particulalry know for goading young Captains, cynical Majors and sallow Lieutenant Colonels...generally leaving the full Colonels and GO's alone, as they are fully cognizant of the fact that the overwhelming majority of them have, so to speak, "been there and done that", just like the crusty old Sergeant Major that keeps their asses out of trouble.

But I digress.

The use of the term "General" by me would be understood by those within hearing and the General himself (or herself, as the case may be).

Similarly, were I to prepare an interoffice communication, I would not spell out Brigadier General...I would most likely use the term "Sir", denoting my personal respect for not only the man, but for his rank.

If we had worked very closely, I would most likely not even preface my communication, but would end it with my initials...knowing that he would know it was I that had initiated the communication.

All of the foregoing applies to the enlisted ranks designations to a degree.

Were I to summon my clerk, I would not yell through the door: "Private First Class Smith, get your ass in here!

Rather, it would be: "Private Smith, front and center, now...followed by an obscene pejorative of some sort that all senior non-commissioned officers are known for.

Communications of any sort by NCO's to other enlisted were and I suspect, still are, short and to the point, they not having the leisure time that officers are granted.

It would never be an NCO, senior or otherwise, to decide that the Army would start using all capitalized abbreviations in the text of documents or in any communication efforts.

Which brings us to the conclusion that the moron must have been an officer that started it.

Us NCOs are simply following the morons, uh, officers, orders.

Thus endeth the lesson.

(Rest assured, all above is presented with humor in mind. I would never, NEVER, attempt to match wits with an officer, particularly one that had such weighty matters to consider.)

And last, but not least...I agree with you, but if you think the USMC has it over the USA in the use of acronyms and bureaucratspeak, then you've never spent time in a Gunny wardroom.

Them boys speak a strange language, one based on grunts and four letter words.

I shudder to think of how the USMC officers talk and write.

Assuming they can, of course.

Have a nice day.

And yes, I was as big of an asshole while on AD as I am retired...so there.

(I'm kidding all the way, of course. So don't get your panties in a wad.....sir.)

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.