Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas is home to the military reintegration center for those who have been held captive. It is good to know that the military doesn’t just pat you on the ass and tell you to run along home to your family. All sorts of emotional issues must be on the front burner and need attention. Not to sound too much like the Showtime blockbuster, Homeland, but the issues are many, part due to treatment by captors and the other part, the human condition.
I listened to the latest congressional hearings last week. Is Congress really that stupid? National decisions are being made by these clowns? Chuck Hagel did a great presentation and handled the rapid fire questions that were fired at him well. I did hear some dufus suggest that Bergdahl was being held in Germany, away from the press and his parents so he would get his story straight. Now that stupid question wasn’t from the press. It was from a US Congressman. Hagel ripped back, ferociously.
It sounds like there is a standard procedure for phasing POWs back in to society. Let’s give Bergdahl a little time. Meanwhile, his sissy platoon needs to STFU. We get it. They didn’t like him. I have always wondered about why he wandered off. It doesn’t sound like his platoon was a very welcoming place to be.
Moon–I think you are running WAY out on a limb on something you know absolutely nothing about. The military, and particularly the infantry in combat, is built on trust; something I suspect Begrdahl did not engender in his fellow platoon members. Why? Because he is NUTS. The red flags were up from the very beginning. The Coast Guard got rid of him because he was NUTS. The Army, in is desperate scramble for soldiers, took him in DESPITE the fact that the Coast Guard said he was NUTS. And he apparently and repeatedly demonstrated that he was NUTS, Why would anyone trust him or welcome him? He is apposed to be covering your 6. If you want to blame anyone, perhaps his lasers should be blamed.
Should he be court martialed? I don’t know–did he know right from wrong and did he have the capacity to adhere to what was right? Maybe Moe can wade in on this? Bergdahl may get off and get out because he is just plain NUTS. In the meantime, I suspect we should all STFU and let the military handle this as best as it can.
Moon, George covered the main point about the kid. But as for his platoon: in my NCO days when working up from Squad Leader, to Platoon to even First Sergeant for a time, I had a favorite saying:
“Give me 50% of the facts, 50% of the rumors, and I’ll tell you the truth.”
Even as a lower enlisted snuffy, we knew who we could rely on, and who was a waste. I started paperwork on more than one kid to toss them before they could do something. And in my Personnel Sergeant days, processed more than one kid out.
Don’t be so quick to toss off the comments by “his sissy platoon”. When you are in the mud and dust together, the real “you” gets shown.
I don’t think tossing him or his platoon hating him is the sissy part. I think talking to the media at this stage of the game was sissy. This is where you close ranks and let the military do its work is critical.
Let’s imagine, just for a second, that there is a bad cop out there in the ranks. Let’s say that cop goes rogue, maybe even disappears for a while. Should his/her squad be talking to the media or should all discussion come from headquarters while there is an on-going investigation? Should cops be better regulated than the military? I can’t think of a police department in this country that would have allowed the rank and file cop to go on television and start spilling his guts about his feelings about a co-worker. The military has more control over its ex-troops than even cops have. Benefits benefits benefits.
One more thing…I don’t necessarily support Bergdahl or his parents one little bit. I will admit that I don’t know and will reserve final judgement. However, I suspect he had some form of PTSD. The fact that few people here are willing to accept that possibility speaks volumes about how combat zone related breakdowns are really viewed.
I’m with you Ray. What Moon is missing is just what goes on at the
“in the dirt” level. You have to have been there, done that to understand it. Unlike the “long blue line”, it doesn’t work that way–Bergdahl DESERTED his fellow soldiers–the emphasis is on DESERTED. In wartime, desertion in the face of the enemy is a crime punishable by DEATH. Just suppose his outfit had been attacked–would one more man at one more gun have staved off an assault? Well, we will never know but…
His so-called “sissy platoon” is pissed off and they feel BETRAYED by one of their own. Yes, it is possible he suffers from PTSD but he was NUTS before he ever go to his platoon and no one picked up on it even though the Coast Guard said it loud and clear.
I, too, am trying to withhold any judgement but it is pretty damned hard to do. As for his parents–his dad is a 14-carat screwball–IMHO.
“his sissy platoon needs to STFU”
Wow, calling his entire platoon a sissy platoon and saying they need to STFU is a bit harsh, no? I don’t see what your issue is with some of them talking to the media. Most, if not all, are no longer in the military. You use the cop analogy but your assuming that every one of these guys are still active duty, they are not, they are civilians. And as civilians they have every right to talk to who ever, when ever they want. They fought for that right, quite literally.
To call them sissies and say they need to STFU is out of line in my humble opinion for what ever that’s worth.
@Moon-howler
I think the platoon did the nation a public service by speaking out. Given that the DoD and Administration described Bergdahl as a POW and his service as honorable and stellar, there is a fair chance that his AWOL status may have been completely ignored if the platoon had not brought it up.
In order to give him a fair trial, I also was quite surprised that there has been so much discussion before any investigation. Actually, I am more shocked at the rabid attacks against him than the behavior of the Taliban. Especially because it sounds like he NEVER should have been accepted into the Army, who set these events in place anyway? Were we so desperate that we allowed someone who was possibly unfit to enlist and then we wonder why the shit hits the fan?
How about this silly gem of Americana……guilty until proven innocent. I sincerely hope that people can find some compassion for him given the horrible treatment it sounds like he endured for five years. I embarrassed that he has been so horribly maligned before he even made it home. We are better than this as Americans.
@George S. Harris
I will agree that we should all STFU. We don’t know. We weren’t there. First, the Army is at fault for taking him if he was rejected by other branches of the service.
However, his platoon really shouldn’t have been talking. That is breaking ranks. I go back to my cop analogy. That just would not be allowed. While there is an ongoing investigation, there should be one voice. After all that is over, then those who served with Bergdahl can speak with the media.
Their behavior also speaks volumes about how mental illness and PTSD is really seen in this country. If someone has PTSD, someone might sit on their bed and cry all day., Someone else might just be dysfunctional as far as holding down a job goes. Other people might beat their wives or kill themselves or get in repeated bar room brawls. Some might desert and some might commit suicide or a shooting spree.
While I might not know how it feels to be in the trenches, I do know that there should be one spokesperson for very sensitive issues. This is a sensitive issue at this point.
I would be remiss to say that all sorts of people think they know more about my former line of work than I do. I hear it all the time and on this blog. I always felt*I* was in the trenches but it never stopped anyone from being all knowing….just sayin’.
@Kelly_3406
Kelly, how about letting the guy decompress and get to the point where he can even be evaluated before we lynch him.
I am all in favor of a thorough investigation. I don’t care if those investigators speak with each and every one of those dudes who appeared on TV. That is fine to ask for colleague input.
What isn’t fine is those guys running their mouths during an investigation. How far of a trial can Bergdahl get if he is court-martialed? I consider that a tainted testimony.
I stand by what I said about them. They needed to wait to talk to the press, until the investigation was over.
@Jackson Bills
See response to Kelly.
I suppose I am to assume that police departments have better discipline than the US Army.
@George S. Harris
I am not missing anything. I am criticizing the platoon talkers for talking during an active investigation. It was unprofessional. It compromised fact-finding.
Even in my former line of work that behavior would have been actionable. You just don’t do it during an investigation unless you are planning on leaving and never coming back.
@Moon-howler
I don’t think you are getting my point. There may NOT have been an investigation if the platoon did not speak up.
As for your analogy to the police, it does not hold. The Army (or any service for that matter) lacks the authority to restrict the free speech of those who are no longer in the military. They CANNOT legally do it.
Funny it doesn’t work that way for security issues with the para spook branches of the military or with NSA or CIA.
I worked with retired military people who absolutely could not discuss certain topics. Not now, not forever.
Additionally, there was going to be an investigation.
There would have been an investigation, Kelly The Army has known (as has the well-read public) since the time of his disappearance that he wandered off, leaving things behind. There’s a lot of bone-headedness to go around here, probably starting with the Army’s accepting someone that the Coast Guard rejected. But there’s an orderly way to sort things out: 1. Recover Bergdahl – that’s an obligation we have to all our servicemen and women. 2. Get him back to health. 3. Find out what happened and charge (or not charge) him accordingly under UCMJ. It will work through in the normal course of things. He may have deserted, he may have intended to aid the enemy, he may have just gone AWOL (not very smart in that environment, but the guy doesn’t appear to be any sort of intellectual giant, or even someone who possesses much common sense), he may have had some mental defect that impaired or negated his ability to think rationally. All that seems susceptible to being investigated and resolved.
My big question on this is why the President’s people had such poor judgment to put him in the Rose Garden with this big announcement. It seems it all should have been handled very quietly, for scads of reasons. There still would have been a lot of criticism, some rational (was the price term too high, could we have bargained to get some civilian captives back while we were at it, etc.) some not so rational. But this is the type of deal that everyone acknowledges was complex and rough. Why put the President out there? A White House press office statement saying that we do not forget our prisoners, we negotiated an exchange, we realize that the deal has rough edges but felt compelled to act quickly on what we feared might be an evanescent opportunity, we are aware of the unusual circumstances of Bergdahl’s capture, and, as part of his repatriation, those circumstances will be investigated and dealt in the normal course. We have had discussions for many months with leaders of Congress about this arrangement, but we did not provide advance notice of the final details because we assessed the situation to be one of such urgency that to give the 30-day notice would possibly frustrate efforts at obtaining Bergdahl’s release. That won’t appease some members of Congress, but that was the executive judgment of the Commander in Chief and he takes full responsibility for his decision. Full stop.
The absence of any apparent common sense about how to go about this is really upsetting for people who like to think that at least the Executive Branch (as opposed to Congress) uses adult brains to think about complex issues. Maybe there aren’t many such people anymore.
Agreed. The Rose Garden presentation really was not the smartest move.
Everything else seemed to be SOP.
Moon, If I am not mistaken, members of his platoon were questioned at an earlier investigation. And it wold be reasonable to expect that some a testify during any further investigation-as a matter of fact, a general has been tasked to conduct an investigation. That is how high profile this case is. Normally a much more uniform officer would be given this task. I fully expect there will be an Article 32 hearing-the military equivalent of a Grand Jury. Sworn testimony will be taken, Bergdahl will have an attorney and eventually some recommendation will be made to a general officer with general court martial authority as to the disposition of Bergdahl’s case. Will he be court martialled? I don’t have a clue and neither does anyone else at this point. Does all the blather to the press by platoon members affect this? Probably no more than people talking to the press in any other situation.
I will say again Moon, you simply don’t understand the military and how this business of trust in your fellow soldier, sailor, Marine or airman works, particularly in combat. And comparing being “in the trenches” as a teacher really has no place in this discussion unless we are discussing the trials and tribulations of being a teacher in our school system.
A note about Bergdahl’s mental status and how he managed to get into the Army after being cashiered out of the Coast Guard. The Army was so desperate for folks that they were giving waivers to all sorts of people including those with drug problems, criminal records, mental issues, etc. Did anyone even look at Bergdahl’s past? Maybe not unless he brought it up, which I suspect he didn’t. This may to have come to light until he decided to abandon his post and an initial investigation was conducted. A sad state of affairs to be sure.
I didn’t compare teaching to being in combat. In fact, I don’t think I uttered the word “teaching.” I have never claimed to be an authority on the military.
I don’t know how many times I can say it. My problem is that Bergdahl’s platoon spoke to the press during an on-going investigation. They can think he is the worst POS in the world. That doesn’t bother me. Talking to the press when they talked to the press should not have happened.
Could anything be done about it? Probably not. However, a few well placed calls from a respected senior officer could have cut a lot of that off. I am assuming the men had been discharged. I am not so unfamiliar with the military that I don’t think commanding officers, if they were respected, would be ignored.
Sorry, as a human being, Bergdahl should have his day in court without his platoon pre-empting him on national TV. Calling them sissies was really just a substitute for a few other things. There are other places they could have talked. A bar, to their commanding officers, at a picnic, out in a field. NOT on TV.
Your analogy makes ZERO sense. You talk about active cops talking to the media about open investigations, and i would agree with you on that point. However, if your analogy holds ANY water what so ever provide proof that any member of his platoon that has taled to the media is active duty. Any proof at all….
From everything I’ve seen they are all civilians. So, are you honestly saying that American civilians, that served their country with honor and dignity, are sissies and should “shut the fuck up”? I just want to be crystal clear as to which Americans are sissies and should shut the fuck up. Those that fought for their country or those who may sill be fighting for our country?
Let give Moon a pass on the “sissy” label. She may have been referring to the fact that these are ARMY infantry.
In which case she would be 100% correct.
(Sorry doggies)
@Scout
You have absolutely no idea whether an investigation would have been carried out or not. If Bergdahl had been welcomed with open arms by the public and Obama received a political boost from bringing home a POW, the Army could have been pressured to decide that Bergdahl’s time in captivity was punishment enough and quietly let the matter drop. During my time on active duty, I observed many examples of commander’s discretion applied to different offenses.
@George Harris
Advice to men: It might be time to get over the idea that I have no idea what combat is like and therefore I should forgive swiftboating.
Those men weren’t in combat when they appeared on TV and they should have waited. I couldn’t care less if they talk to military personnel. That is who they should be talking to.
I don’t need to understand combat to know when swiftboating when I see it. The timing is inappropriate.
All this discussion has proven to me is that there is really zero tolerance for mental illness or mental illness that manifests itself on the battlefield.
Now moving right along….
Moon–it might be time to heed Will Rogers’ advice: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Swiftboating was about an ELECTION, it was NOT about influencing an Article 32 investigation. Your swift boat analogy simply does not hold water and shows me, at least, that you know less about the military than I thought you did. Stop digging-the hole is deep enough.
The Army has initiated its investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the disappearance and capture of Sgt. Bowe R. Bergdahl from Combat Outpost Mest-Lalak in Paktika Province, Afghanistan on or about June 30, 2009. The Army has appointed as the investigating officer Maj. Gen. Kenneth R. Dahl, an Army officer with Afghanistan combat experience.
The primary function of this investigation, as in any other investigation, is to ascertain facts and report them to the appointing authority. These types of investigations are not uncommon and serve to establish the facts on the ground following an incident. The investigating officer will have access to previously gathered documentary evidence, including the 2009 investigation.
NOTE: THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED IN 2009. It is very reasonable that the people who are speaking out now were questioned during the 2009 investigation. Contrary to popular belief, the military is not stupid and the military justice system is not a kangaroo court.
You say, “All this discussion has proven to me is that there is really zero tolerance for mental illness or mental illness that manifests itself on the battlefield.”
It looks to me like you are the only one who has mentioned mental illness as an excuse for Bergdahl’s actions. That may be, but it is unproven at this time. No doubt he has undergone a LOT of stress over the last fig years and if he wasn’t screwed up when he DESERTED his post, he more than likely is now. That may come out during the current investigation but we will just have to wait and see. There is no question he had issues before he went to Afghanistan and going there exacerbated his problems. No one picked up on it–that is a sad state of affairs for sure.
@Cato the Elder
Cato–do you really want to giver her a pass? C’mon, even if they are “Doggies”. Sorry Army!
@George S. Harris
@Cato the Elder
Go Navy! (Had to be said!)
Notice.. our brother service, the Coast Guard saw the writing on the wall.
And if he had been in either the Navy or the Coast Guard…hard to desert to the Taliban from a ship.
Oh…and Swiftboating does not mean what you think it means, I think, Moon.
The Swift Boat vets told the truth about Kerry.
These vets are telling the truth about Bergdahl and wanted to point out the inappropriateness of what was being said about him.
“Swiftboating” means to tell the truth about a low life military member.
You just invented that term. I know exactly what swiftboating means and when it came into existence. To say otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest.
The swift boat vets lied. How do you know? You want to believe they were telling the truth. You weren’t there. Neither was I. There are equal number of people who disagree with them.
Not even going to discuss Benghazi.
If yu weren’y thee, how do you know te
If you weren’t there, how do you know the “swift boat vets lied”?
The criticism of the Swift boat vets aimed at John Kerry started way back in the early 1970’s, when Kerry was badmouthing US troops in general as people who committed atrocities as a matter of course. John O’Neill, author of “Unfit for Command,” had a TV debate with Kerry on that subject on the old Dick Cavett show in 1971, more than 30 years before the 2004 election. O’Neill was the officer who replaced Kerry on the PCF based out of An Thoi. Many of the officers and enlisted men who supported O’Neill in 2004 had served at An Thoi with Kerry before O’Neill arrived. They supported the O’Neill effort.
Yes, Wolve. I was alive then. Kerry was very vocal about the Vietnam War and people didn’t like his opinion. I didn’t like it then. I still had kool ade in my system.
How do I know they lied? Some of the inconsistencies that came out. However, you are correct. I wasn’t there. Its all opinion anyway.
“There are equal number of people who disagree with them.”
If so, none of them ever came forward. Not one statement by the Swift Boat teams was ever disproven or even contested by Kerry. So please tell us how they lied. What evidence do you have that no one else has to show that they lied?
I didn’t invent the term. You are merely using the term “swiftboating” incorrectly since you are implying that these vets are lying. Since they aren’t, then the term does not mean what you think it means.
Oh…and who said anything about Benghazi? Not me.
Well, having worked operationally with the Swifts and actually having been at An Thoi to resupply the PCF base there during the same period in question, I found the accusations of those officers and men to be worthy. They were after Kerry long before Kerry became a politician. That does indeed happen when some guy accuses his brothers in general terms of being prone to the commission of battle atrocities. The brothers tend to resent that kind of thing.
Other than Kerry was a little known officer who distinguished himself during Vietnam. Funny, George Elliot changed his mind about Kerry’s combat worthiness between signing his citation for a medal and 2004–very conflicting statements.
Unfortunately, some folks confused Kerry’s war record with his political beliefs about Vietnam. Regardless, most of Kerry’s crew mates supported him.
I hope we can put John Kerry to bed now. His war record and his beliefs on Vietnam really are old news.
Swift-boating as a verb came into being when Kerry ran for office, sort of the same way borking someone was created.
The hole is getting deeper-it may be time to put the shovels away.