Why are we trading with the Taliban?

[trappincoyotes39]

We give up 5 detainees for an American servicemen? Why are we doing this? This could have a major impact on future servicemen and woman and all Americans if these 5 get out and take revenge on us. I fully understand the want and need of,his parents to bring him home safely, but this is a dangerous deal to give up these 5 men for our future of security and what it shows to our enemies as well, that we are open for negotiating with them in terms of war.


They say they are under a travel ban for a year

[musher]

Why? Because your motto is that you leave no one behind - dead or alive. Without that promise and the trust it builds, your army would not be as strong as it is.

I don't have any problem with the 5 to one. With a bit of luck 6 men and their families can get their lives back to a semblance of normal.

BTW: Doesn't Israel do this sort of thing all the time? Their terrorists are just over a fence as opposed to over an ocean.

[trappincoyotes39]

Musher no where is the motto we leave no one behind , then followed up with even if we make deals with terrorist to stand behind that motto.

[wbg]

Yes, I sure hope this deserter and the five terrorist can ''get their lives back to normal''. To bad His Brothers in arms who lost their lives trying to retrieve His sorry ass won't have that chance.

[trappnman]

lets take one point at a time-

we have made countless deals like this over the centuries to exchange prisoners- to think this is a precedent, or even rare, is absurd- anyone wanting to take that road can do it alone- some of the utter ignorant nonsense I've read here and there, is a joke

and one clown wrote that the dad "grew his hair and beard to look like a Muslim".....ever been to a trapping convention?

musher is right- we don't leave our own behind

I don't give a crap about the 5- we have gotten every bit of intell out of them we could, betting all 5 are dead within 2 years.

now wbgs point is more interesting- I don't know all the facts, but from all reports, he did desert-

the army says-
Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a Facebook post: "The questions about this particular soldier's conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity. This was likely the last, best opportunity to free him. As for the circumstances of his capture, when he is able to provide them, we'll learn the facts. Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty. Our Army's leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred."

[trappnman]

Musher no where is the motto we leave no one behind , then followed up with even if we make deals with terrorist to stand behind that motto.

no where is it written we don't kill fellow troops....its kinda understood....

[FWS]

Musher no where is the motto we leave no one behind

Soldier’s Creed


I am an American Soldier.

I am a warrior and a member of a team.

I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values.

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.

I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.

I am an expert and I am a professional.

I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.

I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.

I am an American Soldier.


The Warrior Ethos: Why We Leave No One Behind

By Nate Rawlings
Time
May 17, 2012



A poster honoring Matt Maupin hangs on the wall during a reception for the U.S. Army Reserve's 724th Transportation Company February 25, 2005 near Fort McCoy in Tomah, Wisconsin.


In the U.S. Armed Forces, we don’t leave anyone behind. It’s one of the basic pillars of what the Army calls the Warrior Ethos: “I will never leave a fallen comrade.”

During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, several troops were captured and held prisoner. Some, like Jessica Lynch, were rescued quickly; Bowe Bergdahl has been held for three years. On April 9, 2004, an Army fuel convoy came under fire near Baghdad Airport, and after emerging from the chaos, the unit was missing nine people – two soldiers and seven civilian drivers. One of the soldiers was found dead, while Specialist Matt Maupin had been captured. A week later, Maupin appeared on a videotape that was broadcast by Al-Jazeera.

Two months after Matt Maupin was captured in Baghdad, I completed officer training and was commissioned an Army lieutenant. Later that summer, news reports said Maupin had been killed. But when I arrived in Baghdad in December 2005, Maupin was still listed as missing, and though the trail had gone cold, the units in the area where he was captured were still searching for him, investigating any leads, large or small.

In June 2006, my unit moved from southern to western Baghdad, to the area where Maupin was captured. Later that summer, one of our companies received a tip from a prisoner who knew where Maupin’s body was buried. The next morning at daylight, we cleared a field where Maupin was said to be. Heavy engineers used ground-penetrating radar to look for remains. Bulldozers dug up the earth, hoping to discover the soldier’s resting place. In the end, we came away with nothing. Dry hole, we said, and returned to our base.

When I called and emailed home that week, I told my friends and family about searching for Maupin. “Who?” they replied. Their confusion wasn’t out of callousness or lack of compassion. Because I was fighting in Baghdad, my friends and family paid close attention to the war. Maupin had simply disappeared from the country’s collective memory, replaced by the demands of daily life and other news from the war zone.

Several more times information on Maupin came our way. Several more times, we suited up and rode into the inferno of an Iraqi summer and spent the day combing, digging, hoping we would find him. Like the first mission, when hope was high, we found nothing. Soon the trail went cold and Maupin disappeared from my thoughts, replaced by other ongoing missions in an increasingly chaotic war.

We returned home six months after searching for Maupin, and a year later I was on my way back to Baghdad. When I arrived in March 2008, I wondered if we would ever find Maupin. On March 20, a unit finally found Maupin’s remains north of where we had previously searched. They had relied on a tip from a local resident and named the recovery mission Operation Trojan Honor, after the mascot from Maupin’s high school. We were far removed from our own efforts to find him, but the news was still a great comfort. Maupin’s family back in Ohio finally knew what happened to their son, and he was laid to rest in their hometown cemetery, not a farm outside of Baghdad.

To this day, more than 73,000 troops remain missing from World War II alone. Unlike Maupin, most of them will never be found. But the search, though it may be in vain, will never end. The oath to never leave a fallen comrade is a promise made to each other, that even if we die, our brothers in arms will do everything they can to bring us home. It’s a mission that hasn’t ended, and as long as wars continue, it never will.

[FWS]

PunditFact checks gov't policy on dealing with terrorists

Ted Cruz: 'U.S. policy has changed, now we make deals with terrorists'

Mostly False

Bob Shackelford, WTSP
June 2, 2014

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said, "U.S. policy has changed, now we make deals with terrorists."

On Saturday, May 31, 2014, President Barack Obama announced from the Rose Garden that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl — America’s only prisoner of war — was freed by his Taliban captors after five years in custody. But Bergdahl’s release came at a cost: In return, the United States agreed to turn over five Taliban officials being held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison to the country of Qatar.

By Sunday, debate over the decision spilled into the political talk shows. White House national security adviser Susan Rice, speaking on ABC’s This Week, said Obama was justified because the U.S. was at war with Bergdahl’s captors even if it wasn’t in the traditional sense.

But Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, took exception to that characterization.

"Ambassador Rice basically said to you, ‘Yes, U.S. policy has changed. Now we make deals with terrorists,’ " Cruz said.

Later, Cruz added: "The reason why the U.S. has had the policy for decades of not negotiating with terrorists is because once you start doing it, every other terrorist has an incentive to capture more soldiers."

The merits of the swap will continue to undergo scrutiny, but we wanted to look at Cruz’s assertion that Obama deviated from long-standing policy. Presidents throughout history have reiterated that the "United States does not negotiate with terrorists" (we found several instances of Obama's State Department saying as much), but do they always hold true to that mantra?

Back to the Founding Fathers

First, whether the war in Afghanistan is a war in the traditional sense or something much different has clouded legal and military debate since it began. Similarly, whether the Taliban, who have controlled parts of Afghanistan, is a traditional enemy or a terrorist group akin to al-Qaida, remains a contentious debate. (Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel claimed on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that the United States wasn’t negotiating with terrorists when it secured Bergdahl’s release.)

The United States has a long history of negotiating prisoner trades in times of war. But does it have a history of negotiating with terrorists, as some might classify the Taliban?

According to experts we spoke with, it does. (For his part, Cruz didn’t respond to a request for comment by our deadline. We'll add their response to this item if we hear from them.)

"There’s little that’s actually new here," said Mitchell Reiss, who worked in the State Department under President George W. Bush and served as national security adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. "It may be new to certain individuals. Whether it’s new or not is not as important as whether it’s sound policy and promotes national security. That’s the ground where there’s a more legitimate debate."

In his book, Negotiating with Evil, Reiss wrote that America actually has a detailed history of negotiating with terrorists and rogue regimes that support terrorist activity. How long? Even the Founding Fathers struck agreements with terrorists of the time: pirates.

George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson "accommodated what today would be viewed as terrorists," Reiss wrote. "They each authorized payment to the Barbary pirates, and the U.S. Senate even ratified a treaty that enshrined the annual provision of naval supplies as ‘protection.’ "

A century later, President Teddy Roosevelt granted demands from the descendants of those pirates to secure the release of captured American resident Ion Perdicaris.

Recent history

To his credit, Cruz said the policy of not engaging terrorists was decades old, not centuries. But there are more recent examples where, as Reiss wrote, "American presidents have negotiated with terrorists and rogue regimes to secure the release of hostages, to arrange temporary cease fires and to explore whether a more permanent truce might be possible."

Here’s a few, according to Reiss’ book:

After the North Koreans captured the U.S.S. Pueblo in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson apologized for spying as part of negotiations to secure the release of 83 American prisoners.

In 1970, President Richard Nixon pressured Israel, Switzerland, West Germany and Britain to release Palestinian prisoners after two airlines were hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

During the Iran hostage crisis of 1979 to 1981, President Jimmy Carter agreed to unfreeze $8 billion in frozen Iranian assets after more than a year of negotiations with the Iranian revolutionaries.

In perhaps the most famous swap, after seven Americans were captured in Beirut, Lebanon, President Ronald Reagan agreed to send missiles to Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal.

President Bill Clinton’s administration sat down with Hamas in attempts to negotiate peace with Israel. His administration also worked directly with the Taliban nearly two decades ago on several occasions to see if the group would hand over Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.

Reiss also noted that President George W. Bush engaged in negotiations with Iran and North Korea even after decreeing them part of the "Axis of Evil."

James Jeffrey, a former ambassador to Iraq under Obama and deputy national security adviser for George W. Bush, agreed that "there have been many cases of negotiations with terrorists or rogue regimes for the return of Americans."

But he added: "releasing terrorists in exchange for captives, however, is rare."

One recent example came in 2010, when the United States released Shia cleric Qais al-Khazali to the militia group Asaib al-Haq in exchange for Peter Moore, a private British contractor, and the bodies of Moore’s security officers. Asaib al-Haq is a militia group allegedly funded by Iran and headed by al-Khazali and staged and executed several attacks in Iraq that resulted in the deaths of U.S. soldiers.

Our ruling

Cruz said Obama changed "decades" of policy of not negotiating with terrorists when he brokered the deal that brought Bergdahl home. Even though presidents and officials often say "we do not negotiate with terrorists," it has not proven to be a hard-and-fast rule. Obama’s actions so far do not signal a change in policy, but rather the latest in a long line of exceptions presidents have made throughout recent history.

We rate Cruz’s statement Mostly False.

[leghorn]

hopefully they implanted some sort of tracking devices in those rags ,and when they all reunite for the homo party , we can slide a few hellfires into their hottub .

[musher]

IF the guy is a deserter, the military will deal with it as it sees fit. That is difficult to do if he is a prisoner in another country.

Until it is proven that he is a deserter, he isn't. Could the guy have had a mental breakdown? I don't know.

I do know a little about deserters. I was the English kid that draft dodgers and deserters met when they were lost souls in Quebec City having left all behind during Vietnam. They were glad to be able to find someone who spoke their language.

I even had a couple of deserters as teachers in high school and college. Same for draft dodgers. There was a world of difference between the two. The main one being the statement "I wasn't going back there."

I actually have more respect for the deserters as they tried it prior to finding out they could not handle the situation they were drafted in. One guy I met was particulerly haunted by his experience. He had nothing, besides difficult memories, but a small bag of things, no cash, and not many options. I directed him to the only youth hostel and never saw him again.

Another I had, as a philosophy teacher in college, was VERY anti American as a result of his Vietnam tour.He was also anti capitalist. I think the terms "commie, pinko" would be accurately used to describe him as he was then. He said he was not like that prior to his drafting. Another teacher, also an American, shared the same last name and only a single letter difference in the first (Tim, Tom). He was obviously not of the same political persuasion and would get miffed if an error in name was made as he wanted nothing to do with the other.

A third, who was a substitute teacher, was also a dish washer at a restaurant. He was scrambling to survive. He seemed to live in the same clothes. We noticed that he had a round tin he kept in is back pocket and we assumed that it was a tin that once contained pellets for a pellet gun ( which some of us had!) I asked him about it and he showed me the tin which contained his money. It was an old snuff can. Chewing tobacco was/is an unknown here and we were amazed that such a thing existed.

Even more amazed than learning that counties forced their people to go to war and that some ran away because they disagreed with it. That actually seemed pretty normal to us because Canada had conscription and we all had heard stories about people running off into the bush to avoid going overseas.

The area I live in now was one of the "run to" areas for those avoiding war. Many here had an uncle/cousin that hid in the camps logging for room and board. There is very little stigma to it as avoiding the second world war meant not fighting for the queen. All the Nazi stuff, France being conquered, being part of the Commonwealth, is forgotten (and avoided to a large extent in history classes) to blame it all on those dastardly English overlords that seized New France.

And many Germans immigrated to Canada after the war.

So.... as I wrote ..... hopefully six families can get back to trying to have a normal life. That does not mean I have no empathy for others that tragically lost theirs.

[trappincoyotes39]

Many things about this deal make me nervous and make little sense, the dad his 5 year deal just not sitting right for some reason.

we do less dealings with hostages in towns across America.

I can tell you navy seals creed states the following: I voluntarily accept the inherent hazards of my profession, placing the welfare and security of others before my own.

This guy is a private and then became a Sargent while being held by the terrorist? how does that happen?

[PamIsMe]

Well, he's certainly not alone, only in that he was held as an Afghan captive.

According to the Pentagon, more than 5,500 military personnel deserted in 2003–2004, following the Iraq invasion and occupation. The number had reached about 8,000 by the first quarter of 2006. Another report stated that since 2000, about 40,000 troops from all branches of the military have deserted, also according to the Pentagon. More than half of these served in the US Army. Almost all of these soldiers deserted within the USA. There has only been one reported case of a desertion in Iraq. The Army, Navy, and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, compared with 3,456 in 2005. The Marine Corps showed 1,603 Marines in desertion status in 2001. That had declined to 148 by 2005.

Pam

[trappnman]

the 5 year deal-
5 years ago, the war was escalating

now- we are withdrawing

but I sleep at night, knowing that if we would have left them their, the right would be all over that as well

FACT:

he was a prisoner

FACT:

we let 5 guys go that we have.....questioned for years

FACT:

our man is home

-----------------
like many things- the response should be job well done!

if he deserted in a combat zone- he will get what he deserves

[trappincoyotes39]

So how did this deserter get to become a sergeant then while being held captive? I think it is obvious he did desert his post.

Job well done? Again things here just seem very fishy and to let it be known even if a guy is a turn coat on his military we will make deals with terrorist is something I find odd right or wrong in some eyes.

[PamIsMe]

So how did this deserter get to become a sergeant then while being held captive?

Here's how:

"POW personnel continue to be considered for promotion along with their contemporaries. Policy provides for each missing or captured officer/enlisted member to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade when they are eligible. The eligibility for officers is based on the date of rank in their current grade. For enlisted members, eligibility is based on time in grade and time in service."

"(CNN) -- The Army will conduct "a comprehensive, coordinated" review into the case of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl -- the recently freed soldier whom some have deemed a hero, others a deserter -- the military branch's civilian leader announced Tuesday."

Depends on what they ultimately decide about him Deserters can still even get the death penalty, not likely though.

Cheers,
Pam

[trappincoyotes39]

Pam they had 5 years to consider the facts and issues of him deserting did they not? Why keep moving someone up the ranks if there was a question of his POW status in the first place ? I could see if he had a wife and kids to feed and the military rose the pay with the rank, but again something smells in this whole deal. he forgot how to speak English in 5 years? Just really strange is all of this.

[trappnman]

so pray tell me- whats the big conspiracy?

name names- or is it the whole army?

whats strange? whats fishy?

seeme pretty cut and dried to me- facts seem 100% clear- no conspiracy, no coverup, no nothing but business as usual

including business as usual with FAUX news

[FWS]

This segment from MSNBC was actually a pretty good discussion on this,

The debate over the Bergdahl negotiation

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman nothing in this is cut and dried that is the issue...........

[trappnman]

which is why I'm not I nthe debate except for 1 fact- yo uDO NOT leave men behind

but as Colbert says- hes in the sweet spot now concerning this- midway between blissful ignorance and outraged speculation