Comments on: Leave no soldier behind – no exceptions Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: rboltuck Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:26:29 +0000 I accept that the exchange for Sgt. Bergdahl was a prisoner-of-war exchange and not “negotiating with terrorists” — else we could often not draw clear lines with prisoner exchanges. For instance, were we dealing with folks more worthy of negotiation when the U.S. exchanged prisoners with the Nazis during WWII as document in the book “Mercy Ships . . .”? ( s-9781852855727/ ).

But I reject that an “at any cost” criteria can possibly be justified. A prisoner exchange is the product of negotiation, and negotiation makes no sense if one doesn’t enter it with a reservation price, above which the proper decision is to walk away. Otherwise, the “at any cost” criteria guarantees we will end up paying an extreme and excessive price. That is what is alleged by critics of the deal for Bergdahl, and that is a reasonable debate to have.

Yes, the U.S. goes to extraordinary lengths and risks much in rescue operations; that shows the value we place on U.S. soldiers held prisoner. And yes, prisoner exchanges are legitimate in principle. But no, these facts taken together do not imply that any prisoner swap consummated “at any cost” is wise.

By: Stickystones Fri, 06 Jun 2014 15:31:11 +0000 ‘No one left behind’ is important but it doesn’t mean at any cost. The cost in this case is a dangerous precedent that very well may mean more soldiers are killed or captured. Bergdahl’s case is similar to Garwoods and other soldiers who gave up and wandered to the enemy while at war. We always want them back regardless, but we don’t change policy over one person whether they are a traitor or hero. This was a shameful exchange and while I’m glad Bowe is back, there will be a cost.

By: lkofenglish Thu, 05 Jun 2014 21:27:06 +0000 no one cares about the Army when they lose…but they do care about their soldiers.

They still fight and die long after all hope is lost.

If there is any soldier who wishes to go to Bo Bergdahl’s parents place and explain this view to all means. Trying his family “in the Court of Fox News” is simply put the lowest point in the History of the American Republic.

Should we simply be honest with ourselves and say “we’d rather have Bo and all the other traitors dead”?

By: euro-yank Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:40:40 +0000 I can not speak to military values, but I believe this article gives a good perspective. And it’s not like the 5 from Gitmo were ever tried and convicted of being terrorists. Nor would any of the senators allow them to be transferred to their state for trial. So, why not use them as collateral to bring home the American?

By: DPM267 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:19:41 +0000 Like any controversial issue, merit can be found for both sides of the argument. A question to answer is: do we always absolutely apply policies that may not be appropriate in every case? Consider:
1. The time-honored “leave no man behind” promise is meant to show that we’ll never break faith with the warfighter. But what if the warfighter decides to quit his post and has already broken that faith?
2. As Bastiatheman stated, the article’s examples are irrelevant. How do you compare the attempts to get back individuals captured while following orders with someone who shirked it?
3. How do you tell a soldier (or possibly those they left behind) that the sacrifices they made capturing 5 high-ranking enemy are so easily given back? By easily, who got the MUCH better end of this deal?

No, I can’t accept that we’ll absolutely, no questions asked, do anything possible to get back someone who has put so much at risk, and apparently did so quite willingly. By doing so, we have broken faith with those who HAVE AND WILL do their duty diligently and honorably.

By: Bastiattheman Thu, 05 Jun 2014 06:56:40 +0000 I am serving in the Army and I can tell you the decision to give up 5 Taliban for 1 American, deserter or not, is universally opposed among my peers. We enlisted to put our individual lives on the line while defending America; giving in to terrorists, even allowing them to choose the EPW’s they get in return, goes 100% against this.

The examples in this editorial are irrelevant. If you asked me whether we should send Rangers or SF to go get Bergdahl I wouldn’t hesitate to say yes. But to give the enemy exactly what they want, especially right after telling them exactly when we’ll be leaving, is absolutely the wrong answer. Those that aren’t in the military shouldn’t be talking about “values” because they have no idea what military values really are.

By: Trent88 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 05:41:17 +0000 The obama administration did not do the trade because they believe in “no soldier left behind.” If they believed that, then why did they refuse to help those in Benghazi, and the marine stuck in Mexico?

By: lkofenglish Thu, 05 Jun 2014 03:36:54 +0000 this was a prisoner exchange…not an armed assault into an enemy compound.

before “storming into enemy lands” one must consider the costs of rescue…in this case there was enormous risk…but “the deal” was a sound one as no one was killed during the exchange.

any soldier talking smack about this is a nut. anything can happen on the field of can find yourself a prisoner of war.

obviously there is no Geneva Convention in Afghanistan…it is interesting that they abided by any terms actually.

I think someone less than a political nut case would point this out…but they’re all Zionist wackos now I guess. Even the Pope bows down before them.

Perhaps we should ask him about the meaning of being “disappeared.” Is that the manner by which us Christian Sinners must act now? “To be erased is to be glorious”? His views on capitalism are indeed enlightening. How about his views on needless sacrifice then?

“Many men died for Bo.”

Indeed they did.
Indeed they did.

Would appear he had two people praying for him…and a President who prayed with them.

Of the United States.

By: Laster Thu, 05 Jun 2014 03:35:15 +0000 unequivocally the right decision. Five more militants angry at the U.S, is a drop in the bucket, if they want to destroy the U.S., the line is long.

By: carnivalchaos Thu, 05 Jun 2014 03:33:22 +0000 We can see from TheNewWorld’s and smit1610’s comments just how far the US has fallen. And I bet neither has served in the US military. It’s obvious. Their sense of honor has been eaten by their hatred for our President. And for what? This President has done nothing deserving of any American’s hatred. They are among the persuaded, tools to be used in advancing the agenda another.

Mr. Dunlap has written an excellent commentary. Thank you, sir, for taking the time to do so. It’s good to see not all of us have lost our values.