Was He or Not

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

True, we don't do that. Or at least we should't.

But it's equally speculative of you to assume that these guys aren't a threat, or to assume that the soldier wandered off to feed hungry kids.

The evidence available certainly indicates he became disillusioned by the wars impact on the Afghan civilians and particularly the children.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The evidence available certainly indicates he became disillusioned by the wars impact on the Afghan civilians and particularly the children.

-spence

And to a person not blinded by love of the sitting president, there is equally strong evidence that by virtue of being a "Taliban leader", these guys represent a serious threat.

I'm sure all the Afghan children, especially the little girls, will face better future prospects under the Taliban.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And to a person not blinded by love of the sitting president, there is equally strong evidence that by virtue of being a "Taliban leader", these guys represent a serious threat.

I'll bet they all have book deals by the end of the month

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And to a person not blinded by love of the sitting president, there is equally strong evidence that by virtue of being a "Taliban leader", these guys represent a serious threat.

I'm sure all the Afghan children, especially the little girls, will face better future prospects under the Taliban.

So how would you have handled it differently? left him over there? Doesn't seem your MO, whatever his status was....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So how would you have handled it differently? left him over there? Doesn't seem your MO, whatever his status was....

A fair question.

The answer is, you try as hard as you can to get him back on your own, but you don't negotiate with terrorists to do it, even if it means you lose the ability to get him back. And that applies whether he is a suspected deserter, or if he's Audie Murphy. Because if all the terrorists around the world see that we now are willing to trade 5 for 1, who (except Spence) would deny that incentivizes more terrorists to do the same thing?

If we have to kill a lot of people to get him back, fine. But you don't negotiate with these people, or reward them, for their behavior. That encourages more similar behavior, and that's exactly why we came up with the phrase "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

It's not the same as a prisoner exchange, because subsequengt to a prisoner exchange, after th ewar is over, the released prisoners pose to further threat. A child knows that's not the case with the Taliban or Al Queda.

Rockhound, when you tell your children "no" and they throw a fit, do you cave in and give them what they want? No. Why? Because even a kid can connect those dots and realise he can now get what he wants by doing the same thing.

It's not that complicated. It's horrible for the people who would be lost by not negotiating with those people, but there's no other way.

Your question assumes (incorrectly) that the only 2 choices were to cave in, or accept that we can't ever get him back. There is a 3rd alternative, and that's what I'd choose, and that's you use your brains and your brawn to get him back on our own terms.

When that ship captain got kidnapped by pirates off Somalia, why didn't we give the pirates a dump truck full of money like they wanted? Had we done that, the probably would have let him go, right? But we didn't, we let the SEALs take him back by force, even though th ecaptain easily could have been hurt during the exchange of gunfire. And the reason is exactly the same, because that would encourage more piracy. That was one of the very few that this Bolshevik Klown got right.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

A fair question.


Rockhound, when you tell your children "no" and they throw a fit, do you cave in and give them what they want? No. Why? Because even a kid can connect those dots and realise he can now get what he wants by doing the same thing.

1. Sometimes, my kids win, yes.

2. If these guys were scheduled to be released; I've read mixed stuff on that, and they spend the next year in Quater, they don't seem to pose an immediate threat. My hunch is if they show up in intelligence at all, a drone will be over their shoulder pretty damn fast...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

1. Sometimes, my kids win, yes.

2. If these guys were scheduled to be released; I've read mixed stuff on that, and they spend the next year in Quater, they don't seem to pose an immediate threat. My hunch is if they show up in intelligence at all, a drone will be over their shoulder pretty damn fast...

"they don't seem to pose an immediate threat"

Based on what?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If we have to kill a lot of people to get him back, fine. But you don't negotiate with these people, or reward them, for their behavior. That encourages more similar behavior, and that's exactly why we came up with the phrase "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

It's good you recognize that it's only a phrase. Terrorists are negotiated with all the time. Hell, Israel once release over a thousand Palestinians (we'll assume they were all terrorists right?) for a single low-level military captive...and they're supposed to be tough right?

Your question assumes (incorrectly) that the only 2 choices were to cave in, or accept that we can't ever get him back. There is a 3rd alternative, and that's what I'd choose, and that's you use your brains and your brawn to get him back on our own terms.

I don't think they could determine exactly where he was. Looks like he was being moved around western Pakistan. That's not an easy rescue.

When that ship captain got kidnapped by pirates off Somalia, why didn't we give the pirates a dump truck full of money like they wanted? Had we done that, the probably would have let him go, right? But we didn't, we let the SEALs take him back by force, even though th ecaptain easily could have been hurt during the exchange of gunfire. And the reason is exactly the same, because that would encourage more piracy. That was one of the very few that this Bolshevik Klown got right.

Totally different situation. With the Somali pirates we knew exactly where the captive was. The order to shoot was given as they thought the Captain was about to be killed.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's good you recognize that it's only a phrase. Terrorists are negotiated with all the time. Hell, Israel once release over a thousand Palestinians (we'll assume they were all terrorists right?) for a single low-level military captive...and they're supposed to be tough right?


I don't think they could determine exactly where he was. Looks like he was being moved around western Pakistan. That's not an easy rescue.


Totally different situation. With the Somali pirates we knew exactly where the captive was. The order to shoot was given as they thought the Captain was about to be killed.

-spence

"Terrorists are negotiated with all the time." What you don't do, is give in to them.

Spence, it's really too bad for Hitler that Obama wasn't President in 1938. What would he have conceded in the face of that threat?

"I don't think"..."Looks like "...

Looks to me like you're grasping at straws.

"That's not an easy rescue."

Since when do we abandon the right course once we conclude it's "not easy"? Since January 2009, I guess...

"The order to shoot was given as they thought the Captain was about to be killed."

You sure about that? I thought the order to shoot was given when they had a clear shot. How could they (or you) have known he was about to be killed? Did the pirates announce over loudspeaker that he was about to be killed?

It appears you take a lot of liberties, and make a ton of assumptions, and 100% of them paint Obama in a favorable light. Do you deny that?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, it's really too bad for Hitler that Obama wasn't President in 1938. What would he have conceded in the face of that threat?

Look at what's happening in Ukraine. You don't think Obama wasn't playing chicken with Putin and for the most part appears to be winning?

Looks to me like you're grasping at straws.

Ok Scottw.

Since when do we abandon the right course once we conclude it's "not easy"? Since January 2009, I guess...

Do you not think if the military had a feasible plan before they wouldn't have tried it? Oh I forgot, Obama hates the troops.

You sure about that? I thought the order to shoot was given when they had a clear shot. How could they (or you) have known he was about to be killed? Did the pirates announce over loudspeaker that he was about to be killed?

My understanding is that they had a weapon pointed at his head which prompted the action.

The more I think about this whole Bergdahl situation the more it disturbs me. This is a propaganda campaign to lash out at Obama using an active service member as the proxy.

-spence