fate

Actually, it is different. Krauthammer knows nothing more than I do on this matter. Feinstein knows, or should, a lot more.

The key take away from Feinstein is her admission, I just don't know".
Whether or not she should, know is another matter.

The basic take away from Krauthammer, whom I quoted because he is someone who's opinion you've often quoted Fate,
is this

"The reason we put a value on the individual human life the way that the ones at the other end of the table don't," Krauthammer said. "That's why we always end up with unequal swaps."

Its hard to understand how you can hold this opinion

I find "our dealings with the Taliban" disconcerting anyway. Think about it. What do they want? To re-establish their tyrannical rule--one in which women are chattel, and Sharia is the law of the land. They want to keep Afghanistan in the 7th Century

but can't agree that there are values that make the unequal exchange understandable.

Its hard to understand how you can hold this opinion...but can't agree that there are values that make the unequal exchange understandable

Ricky: On the contrary, it is an entirely understandable duality. When faced with an implacable enemy who relishes the destruction of you and everything you believe in, it is difficult - if not anathema - to even think of making deals with them. Nevertheless, our traditional values and ethnics make us believe we must give up even dangerous prisoners in order to retrieve one of our people from captivity.

Of course, by their standards, our decision reinforces their position that we are foolish, weak infidels, willing to risk future deaths of countless more people for the sake of one soldier, so deserve to die. By this trade, they hold us in contempt and claim the victory. Still, we operate by our standards, not theirs, we say as a comfort. We hold life to a different standard than they do. The consequence, however, is that their "victory" emboldens them to pursue more actions against us. So our values get bruised by the boots of Reality.

And at least we can hope that the President has the good sense and balls to send Special Forces teams to kill those just-released terrorists, denying the Taliban their victory. Finally, I hope that a military investigation into Bergdahl's conduct and actions is carried out, complete and fair, and not tarnished by the political expedience of either party. That would include not worrying whether Pres. Obama looks bad because of this. That horse has left the barn, anyway.

georgeatkins wrote:

Its hard to understand how you can hold this opinion...but can't agree that there are values that make the unequal exchange understandable

Ricky: On the contrary, it is an entirely understandable duality. When faced with an implacable enemy who relishes the destruction of you and everything you believe in, it is difficult - if not anathema - to even think of making deals with them. Nevertheless, our traditional values and ethnics make us believe we must give up even dangerous prisoners in order to retrieve one of our people from captivity.

Of course, by their standards, our decision reinforces their position that we are foolish, weak infidels, willing to risk future deaths of countless more people for the sake of one soldier, so deserve to die. By this trade, they hold us in contempt and claim the victory. Still, we operate by our standards, not theirs, we say as a comfort. We hold life to a different standard than they do. The consequence, however, is that their "victory" emboldens them to pursue more actions against us. So our values get bruised by the boots of Reality.

And at least we can hope that the President has the good sense and balls to send Special Forces teams to kill those just-released terrorists, denying the Taliban their victory. Finally, I hope that a military investigation into Bergdahl's conduct and actions is carried out, complete and fair, and not tarnished by the political expedience of either party. That would include not worrying whether Pres. Obama looks bad because of this. That horse has left the barn, anyway.

great post ... thank you ... With the exception of the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph I fully agree. I learned something here and it is very well put.

george

Ricky: On the contrary, it is an entirely understandable duality. When faced with an implacable enemy who relishes the destruction of you and everything you believe in, it is difficult - if not anathema - to even think of making deals with them. Nevertheless, our traditional values and ethnics make us believe we must give up even dangerous prisoners in order to retrieve one of our people from captivity.
Of course, by their standards, our decision reinforces their position that we are foolish, weak infidels, willing to risk future deaths of countless more people for the sake of one soldier, so deserve to die. By this trade, they hold us in contempt and claim the victory. Still, we operate by our standards, not theirs, we say as a comfort. We hold life to a different standard than they do. The consequence, however, is that their "victory" emboldens them to pursue more actions against us. So our values get bruised by the boots of Reality.
And at least we can hope that the President has the good sense and balls to send Special Forces teams to kill those just-released terrorists, denying the Taliban their victory. Finally, I hope that a military investigation into Bergdahl's conduct and actions is carried out, complete and fair, and not tarnished by the political expedience of either party. That would include not worrying whether Pres. Obama looks bad because of this. That horse has left the barn, anyway

.

If the enemy is truly "implacable", then either course of action is a looser. Not negotiating, and holding the prisoners in their legally questionable detention forever would only stengthen their resolve.... and encourage further acts of terrorism. And Bergdahl would die in their hands. By simple game logic, the only way the US could get anything positive would be in securing Bergdahls release. And time, was not on the side of the US if that was the only prize to be had. And it was, since letting him die in captivity would not have affected an implaccable foe negatively.

The point you miss George, (at least in your response, which wasn't meant to be all inclusive I suppose) is that the actual battlefield is the hearts and minds of the populace of Afghanistan and Pakistan. If the US is willing to show how valuable individual citizens are to the government, and how much they are willing to risk ...that's an important display. (although it also can be contrasted with the many civilian deaths from allied activity).

The Taliban is popular in Afghanistan only when it offers retribution for the Afghanis people against their enemies. Remember that the Taliban came to power as a successful resistance movement to the occupation of Afghanistan by the USSR. (Supported by the CIA and the Pakistani Intelligence).
By itself, the severe version of Islam that the Taliban lives by, is not an attractive option fr most Afghanis.

I also don't think that a president who has authorized the use of Drones and assassination more than any other, is likely to have let loose dangerous men without an option to let loose on the men if they show signs of "reentering" the conflict. But then, which conflict? The one in Afghanistan, where, if there is going to be a lasting peace, the Taliban will have to participate in talks and a political resolution. Or the one in Pakistan, whose local Taliban is a far more decentralized and uncontrolled organization , whose enemy isn't foreign entities so much a the Pakistani government.

Starting a conversation with the Taliban is going to be essential to a political solution in Afghanistan. A hostage negotiation through an intermediatary might be a good way to start. At the very least, its freed Bergdahl.

There is at least one disconcerting comparison to be made in this, The detention of Bergdahl compared to the detention of Taliban in Guantanamo have an awful lot of similarities. Imagine how an Afghani or Pakistani compares the two detentions and treatment? For instance: The US is appalled that Bergdahl may have been tortured, but in comparison the US government approved of "enhanced interrogation techniques"and severe detention conditions.

Its an example of how Gitmo and the CIA black sites have and continue to hamper the battle for the moral high ground.

Thanks for the reply, Ricky.

rickyp wrote:If the enemy is truly "implacable", then either course of action is a looser. Not negotiating, and holding the prisoners in their legally questionable detention forever would only stengthen their resolve.... and encourage further acts of terrorism.

Actually, I merely point out why it is possible to be of two minds, not whether one course or the other is correct.

And Bergdahl would die in their hands.

Not specifically true or even inevitable. North Korea held onto prisoners of war for decades; in other cases, some went over to the other side.

By simple game logic, the only way the US could get anything positive would be in securing Bergdahls release. And time, was not on the side of the US if that was the only prize to be had. And it was, since letting him die in captivity would not have affected an implaccable foe negatively.

.

Is not the release of Bergdahl the only positive thing here? What else would there be? Bergdahl's death would only matter in European and American eyes. Either way, the Taliban would claim a victory.

The point you miss George, (at least in your response, which wasn't meant to be all inclusive I suppose) is that the actual battlefield is the hearts and minds of the populace of Afghanistan and Pakistan. If the US is willing to show how valuable individual citizens are to the government, and how much they are willing to risk ...that's an important display. (although it also can be contrasted with the many civilian deaths from allied activity).

I think if you want to play thought games with the notion that the US is going around killing civilians, even accidentally, you might want to contrast how the Taliban do this routinely, as part of the program of "winning hearts and minds" through threats, coercion, abduction and torture. Your point would be more germane:
a) If the Afghani and Pakistani citizens knew this trade happened and why.
b) If the Taliban looked like losers rather than winners.
c) If Afghanis and Pakistanis had the same value system you are working from. After all, the fact that we have sent US citizens to fight and die in their country for some 9 years should be enough of a display of how much we respect individual lives. Or, perhaps they have been looking at this the opposite way: Here is a government (US) that willingly wastes so many American lives in a country that has nothing to do with US interests.

In any event, Afghanistan has suffered >2000 years of foreign interventions by foreign nations. I think they probably did appreciate our original "rescue" operation, but were probably appalled at our inability or reluctance to follow the Taliban and finish them off, instead, choosing to stick around and tell them how to run their country.

The Taliban is popular in Afghanistan only when it offers retribution for the Afghanis people against their enemies. Remember that the Taliban came to power as a successful resistance movement to the occupation of Afghanistan by the USSR. (Supported by the CIA and the Pakistani Intelligence). By itself, the severe version of Islam that the Taliban lives by, is not an attractive option fr most Afghanis.

I'll agree with your last assessment, in general. But not in specifics, since it is clear that many Afghanis belong or belonged to the Taliban and still support their core beliefs. It would be a mistake to assume that all Afghanis are against or for the Taliban, as history has shown. The Afghanis - still a collection of tribal cultures - have never been a single group of like-minded people, except in their general dislike of foreigners.

I also don't think that a president who has authorized the use of Drones and assassination more than any other, is likely to have let loose dangerous men without an option to let loose on the men if they show signs of "reentering" the conflict.

Well, this is more or less one of the points I did bring up, of course.

But then, which conflict? The one in Afghanistan, where, if there is going to be a lasting peace, the Taliban will have to participate in talks and a political resolution. Or the one in Pakistan, whose local Taliban is a far more decentralized and uncontrolled organization , whose enemy isn't foreign entities so much a the Pakistani government.

Is this a reasonable point to make? If the governor of an American state released a prisoner who then committed murder, would it matter terribly much if it occurred in the neighboring state? Would the governor sleep well, thinking "Well, at least that's somebody else's problem"? As for what the future of Afghanistan is with regard to the Taliban, that is open for discussion. I would not assume it would have to be the cooperative negotiations you seem to suppose, unless it might be the Taliban issuing the conditions and demands and the Afghani government doing the responding.

Starting a conversation with the Taliban is going to be essential to a political solution in Afghanistan. A hostage negotiation through an intermediatary might be a good way to start. At the very least, its freed Bergdahl.

Only if you believe the Afghanis care one whit about the American exchange. Why should they? And keep in mind that our strategy now is an exit strategy, so our Government says. This makes our negotiating position less tenable, since we will not be around to deal with the results. We did go into Afghanistan with honorable and altruistic motivations, I believe. But I do not believe our Government understood the consequences of remaining there after the Taliban - as a government force - was overthrown and somewhat expelled.

There is at least one disconcerting comparison to be made in this, The detention of Bergdahl compared to the detention of Taliban in Guantanamo have an awful lot of similarities. Imagine how an Afghani or Pakistani compares the two detentions and treatment?

For certain, most Afghanis are not going to know that Taliban prisoners are probably better housed and treated than most Americans in American prisons and have better health care than some Americans. Not that Gitmo is a country club by any stretch of the imagination. It is still a prison. But I would bet dollars to donuts it's a far cry better than any Taliban jail. Again, such comparisons are only useful for newspaper and tv discussions. I don't think the Afghanis care one way or the other, other than being happy to see both groups leaving them alone.

For instance: The US is appalled that Bergdahl may have been tortured, but in comparison the US government approved of "enhanced interrogation techniques"and severe detention conditions. Its an example of how Gitmo and the CIA black sites have and continue to hamper the battle for the moral high ground.

Again, this is an issue that plays well with Americans and Europeans where such events are not routine. In Afghanistan, the people are well aware, at least of what the Taliban do and have seen what we do there. That there might be "secret" CIA prisons in Europe probably means nothing to the people of Afghanistan, except as propaganda points by one political part or another. That is to say, even if there were not these secret holding centers, it would not viably change the opinions of the Afghani citizens. But I'm guessing, Ricky, you meant to restrict your comments to winning the hearts and minds of Americans and Europeans, right? You cannot blame the Afghanis for their actions, as they know we are leaving, while the Taliban can - and will - return.

What I find interesting is that, upon entering office, Obama, who ran on an anti-Bush platform, has for so long continued (and expanded) many of Bush's programs, while publicly trying to distance himself from them. Here is a person who projected such an anti-Bush persona during his presidential campaign that the Swedes gave him the Nobel Peace prize for having accomplished nothing more than being anti-Bush (i.e. ending the Iraq and Afghani wars!). I wonder if the Nobel Committee would like to have a do-over at this point. President Obama had no trouble apologizing to Islamic leaders for past American actions overseas; I wonder if he'll be as openly apologetic about the actions of his Presidency?

george

Actually, I merely point out why it is possible to be of two minds, not whether one course or the other is correct

Ok

george

Is not the release of Bergdahl the only positive thing here? What else would there be? Bergdahl's death would only matter in European and American eyes. Either way, the Taliban would claim a victory

Its the only positive thing, that we can be sure of...
But the negatives, that people bring up are neither certain nor would they change if Bergdahl were still in Taliban hands..The negatives are constant..

george

If Afghanis and Pakistanis had the same value system you are working from. After all, the fact that we have sent US citizens to fight and die in their country for some 9 years should be enough of a display of how much we respect individual lives. Or, perhaps they have been looking at this the opposite way: Here is a government (US) that willingly wastes so many American lives in a country that has nothing to do with US interests.In any event, Afghanistan has suffered >2000 years of foreign interventions by foreign nations. I think they probably did appreciate our original "rescue" operation, but were probably appalled at our inability or reluctance to follow the Taliban and finish them off, instead, choosing to stick around and tell them how to run their country.

I think the ordinary Afghani or Pakistai have similar feelings when they see their relatives or friends die at the hands of terror. I think they value the lives of their families every bit as much as anyone. And when a foreign power that does not speak like them and seems oblivious to the damage their actions take, or who treat the lives of civilians callously, is responsible for acts that kill, then animosity can be hard baked.
That is largely why the Afghanis chose the Taliban over the Russians and the Afghan communists.
I think you make a significant mistake when you imagine that Afghanis are so different... and not fundamentally human with shared human values.

For certain, most Afghanis are not going to know that Taliban prisoners are probably better housed and treated than most Americans in American prisons and have better health care than some Americans

http://rt.com/news/bagram-torture-afgha ... ation-359/
Afghanis are very aware of Bagram... and will assume Gitmo is the same. And they will be very aware that torture was an acceptable practice at Bagram.
I don't think the average Afghanis can parse the difference between the actual activities that occured at Bagram and the good intentions of the Allies when they invaded. You don't get credit for good intentions if you're actions are evil. (And I think torture is evil)
And unfortunately, as great the sacrifice is by the troops on the ground, the way detainees are treated diminishes the value of their effort.
Its also the very reason that the Taliban aren't likely to last. Their methods may create stability, but at the cost of harsh treatment for too many Afghanis.

In the end, the discussion over Bergdahl's release does come down to the values of a nation. If a nation isn't willing to risk much to bring home all of its soldiers - without prejudging them - then maybe it isn't a nation people would want to serve....?
Obama should never have trotted into the Rose Garden with a victory announcement though. It was something he had to do, not something that needed to be celebrated. At least not immediately.

The Nobel Peace prize is political - it is awarded by politicians (whereas the other Prizes are awarded by academic institutions) and has had some totally shocking awardees in the past. I don't think Obama is in the top ten of regrets, even if they might have second thoughts aboit him.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:What was it called, Gander? Oh I remember. You called it Whataboutery, and looked down on that.

Ahhh, good times..., good times...

We discussed other hostage trades in the thread without it being called out (Israel, for example) - and so it is relevant to discuss previous American ones. That is not really 'whataboutery'. It's called 'context'.

DF - He had a 'questionable' tweet? Gosh. It's not as if having a missing son might lead to someone not always conforming to expected behaviours.

We have a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists. We are not Israel and this is Pandora's box.

"Questionable" tweet is an understatement. It was worthy of CAIR at the very least.

Ray Jay wrote:

georgeatkins wrote:

Its hard to understand how you can hold this opinion...but can't agree that there are values that make the unequal exchange understandable

Ricky: On the contrary, it is an entirely understandable duality. When faced with an implacable enemy who relishes the destruction of you and everything you believe in, it is difficult - if not anathema - to even think of making deals with them. Nevertheless, our traditional values and ethnics make us believe we must give up even dangerous prisoners in order to retrieve one of our people from captivity.

Of course, by their standards, our decision reinforces their position that we are foolish, weak infidels, willing to risk future deaths of countless more people for the sake of one soldier, so deserve to die. By this trade, they hold us in contempt and claim the victory. Still, we operate by our standards, not theirs, we say as a comfort. We hold life to a different standard than they do. The consequence, however, is that their "victory" emboldens them to pursue more actions against us. So our values get bruised by the boots of Reality.

And at least we can hope that the President has the good sense and balls to send Special Forces teams to kill those just-released terrorists, denying the Taliban their victory. Finally, I hope that a military investigation into Bergdahl's conduct and actions is carried out, complete and fair, and not tarnished by the political expedience of either party. That would include not worrying whether Pres. Obama looks bad because of this. That horse has left the barn, anyway.

great post ... thank you ... With the exception of the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph I fully agree. I learned something here and it is very well put.

I agree with GA without exception.

fate

We have a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

Except that the United States has — during the Iranian hostage crisis and the Iran-contra affair, for example.

rickyp wrote:fate

We have a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

Except that the United States has — during the Iranian hostage crisis and the Iran-contra affair, for example.

Even Carter tried to rescue them. Obama? He just gave the Taliban everything they wanted. So, in that sense, we still don't negotiate with terrorists--we simply meet their demands. Obama is a spineless, lying weasel, but a good family man.

In any event, Iran-Contra was far more complex than the Obama surrender to a terror network.

Ricky,

I don't think we are that far apart on several issues. I agree with your sentiments about the Afghanis with regard to death & motivations. I certainly did not intend to suggest that they are "less human" as you put it. Indeed, a death (esp of a family member) for any normal human being is going to be traumatic and long-felt. And good intentions do matter, even if the outcome is not what was hoped for. But winning the hearts and minds of the people? That is not why we went there and it is a mistake that we stayed there, if that is the reason.

Taliban kill to make opportunities to control. They also aim to kill/destroy what they see as a danger to their belief system. We believe our motives are higher, that we are displacing and killing the Taliban in order to restore order, some semblance of freedom, and to remove a danger to the belief system of those Afghanis who do not support the Taliban or their ways. In this, I agree. And I think the people can distinguish between the two. I'm just not sure it matters all that much to them when people keep getting killed. I think their "war weariness" has a much stronger pedigree and history than ours, and they would like both the Taliban and us to leave. It's a bad situation for them, all around.

(off the track, perhaps)
Compared to civilian deaths in WWII, for example, our military today are nothing short of exemplary. Nowadays, Americans/Europeans get upset to hear about the 5 or 10 citizens who got killed "this week" by some drone attack. Fine. Any innocent death is tragic. But to hear people condemn the military as if they were incompetent or irresponsible shows an amazing ignorance of history and military capabilities (i.e. our ability to limit the unintended killing of civilians).

(back on track?)
I agree with what you wrote about the origins of the Tailban. They were preferable over the Russians because of their role as liberators. I don't know if their long-term goal originally was control of the country and way of life. Others more knowledgeable may be able to say. Of course, that was the outcome.

So the Taliban liberators did not leave after the departure of the Russians; they did not melt back into the countryside, staying on as conquerors and oppressors (from our point of view). And so, we came as liberators. Fortunately, it appears we are finally leaving, though it seems the President is trying to qualify what the definition of "leave" is. I would just as soon he issue the General Order and pull them all out now. We've done as much as we can under the military and political ROE in which we operate. Soldiers are not trained to be diplomats, teachers, or guidance counselors and it is a mistake to use them that way, as our government has done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Time to get gone. Let the UN come in our place and worry about winning the hearts and minds of the people. The UN has all kinds of social and humanistic programs they can put into place. That is what they are for, after all.

Thanks for the discussion, Rick

fate

Even Carter tried to rescue them. Obama? He just gave the Taliban everything they wanted

So now you're complaining that there were no forces searching for Bergdahl? You're claiming that there was never any attempt to find him?

Fate

In any event, Iran-Contra was far more complex than the Obama surrender to a terror network.

Well, trading missiles to Iran, branded a terorist regime, and using the financial proceeds to fund more terrorists in Central America.Yeah. That was complex.
But it was negotiating with terrorists.

So you're long standing policy? Not really. And there's more.

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.
· 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." [PolitiFact, 6/1/14]

george

But winning the hearts and minds of the people? That is not why we went there and it is a mistake that we stayed there, if that is the reason.

I agree that the incursion into Afghanistan was half assed and ill advised.
I believe there were two options. Either an attempt to kill or arrest OBL.
Or the elimination of the Taliban and the replacement with a lasting government that could evolve into a functioning democracy.

The first was a mission of several weeks at best. Afghanistan would have been left to its own devices ...namely the Taliban government at the time.
The second was a generational investment in occupying and fundamentally changing the society.
Somehow, an attempt was made at the second on the cheap.

rickyp wrote:fate

Even Carter tried to rescue them. Obama? He just gave the Taliban everything they wanted

So now you're complaining that there were no forces searching for Bergdahl? You're claiming that there was never any attempt to find him?

Um, no. Please quote the section of my post that makes you believe that.

#lotsofluck

Stop building straw men.

Read what I said and point out where I'm wrong: the Taliban asked for 6 releases. 5 of them were released; the sixth guy died. So, they got everything they asked for.

Meanwhile, we wanted the Taliban to renounce terror. Have they? We wanted them to agree to participate constructively in the government of Afghanistan. Are they?

They gave us a deserter and nothing more.

Fate

In any event, Iran-Contra was far more complex than the Obama surrender to a terror network.

Well, trading missiles to Iran, branded a terorist regime, and using the financial proceeds to fund more terrorists in Central America.Yeah. That was complex.
But it was negotiating with terrorists.

You've left out a lot of detail--it was a Rube Goldberg contraption.

So you're long standing policy? Not really. And there's more.

The Taliban is not a government. Iran is. Again, there's a lot more to it and I don't really care to analyze it.

Even if you want to say they are equivalent, Obama got snookered. He got nothing, gave up a great deal, and then crowed about recovering Bergdahl with a Rose Garden ceremony. It was a Pyrrhic victory.

Oh, and if, just if, we gave them money too? That's the rumor. Let's see.

Meanwhile, why don't you just beat your Canadian chest and be proud of your tar sands.