Jim Geraghty:
Confirmed: The Bowe Bergdahl Deal Is as Disastrous as We Feared
So those reports from January turned out to be accurate:
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was held captive by the Taliban for five years after leaving his remote post in Afghanistan, was charged by the Army with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.
The misbehavior charge carries a potential life sentence, the Army said in a statement, but legal analysts said it was likely Bergdahl would reach an agreement that would result in a light punishment.
Bergdahl was released from captivity after the United States agreed to release five Taliban militants held at Guantanamo Bay.
He was charged with “misbehavior before the enemy by endangering the safety of a command, unit or place,” according to the Army statement…
Bergdahl was also charged with “desertion with intent to shirk important or hazardous duty,” which carries a potential five-year sentence, according to the Army statement.
You’ll recall Susan Rice assured us that Bergdahl “served with honor and distinction.”
The statement from Senator Tom Cotton:
The Army’s decision to charge Bowe Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior in the face of the enemy underscores how misguided and dangerous it was for President Obama to trade five hardened Taliban commanders for Bergdahl in the first place. Regardless of his conduct, the United States should not negotiate with terrorists or trade terrorist detainees for American hostages. President Obama’s break with this longstanding bipartisan policy has placed a price on the head of every American abroad, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else. And it’s created the risk that these five detainees will return to the fight.
Now that Bergdahl has been charged, his proceedings should move forward under the Uniform Code of Military Justice without unlawful command influence, just as they would for any other soldier charged with misconduct.
Finally, I want to commend the many soldiers in Bergdahl’s unit who risked their lives on missions to rescue him, despite suspecting he had deserted from the outset. Some have observed that President Obama was justified in his decision to swap terrorists for Bergdahl based on the principle that we leave no man behind. Let’s be clear about this: the soldiers who tried to rescue Bergdahl didn’t leave him behind and we should be grateful for that.
Last summer, Hillary Clinton declared, “It doesn’t matter how someone ended up in a prisoner-of-war situation.”
That’s the sort of statement that, offered by a Republican lawmaker, could launch a lot of sneering, snickering columns on the op-ed pages of big newspapers. Really? It doesn’t matter at all if a soldier deserted or attempted to join the enemy, compared to being captured while in combat or on patrol? That doesn’t factor into our decision-making or thinking at all, at any point?
How do you think the men and women in uniform feel when those of us outside of it declare, “Whether you serve with honor and distinction, or whether you run away from your post, we see you the exact same way”? Doesn’t that treat every guy who does the right thing and performs his duty like a chump? Shouldn’t it matter to us how someone ended up in enemy hands?
No base stealing, lefties; you can’t presume that this is a binary choice, with the only options being to always attempt a rescue under any circumstances or to leave our man in enemy custody. (Right now, half the Morning Jolt readers are exclaiming, ‘Once you desert to join the enemy, you’re not ‘our man.’’) Our military leaders have to calculate and assess risk, to determine if the odds of success justify risking the men and women involved in the rescue attempt. Is Hillary Clinton really contending that having a lower threshold of risk for a deserter is morally objectionable?
