06-01-2014, 08:54 AM
I have mixed feelings about it as well.
![[Image: 16x9]](http://www.trbimg.com/img-538a13bc/turbine/la-fg-american-soldier-freed-in-afghanistan-20-001/750/16x9)
It is truly awesome that Sgt. Bergdahl ^ is alive and will be reunited with his family after 5 years.
But, I understand the concern that a prisoner of war exchange including senior Taliban officials is the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists and could be incentive for terrorists or enemies of any sort to take Americans hostage as a bargaining chip.
Obama used Qatar's leadership as brokers/middlemen to orchestrate the deal so as not to legitimatize the ousted Taliban in the eyes of the current Afghan leadership, and to stave off criticism of negotiating with terrorists, IMO. I think it was still a negotiation with a deemed "terrorist" organization, no matter who was standing in the middle. And the "terrorists" did well, 5 for 1.
But, Obama also declared yesterday that all troops will be out of Afghanistan in 2 years and the prison at Guantanamo, where the Taliban prisoners were being held, will be shut down. So, seems to me that Sgt. Bergdahl's return is being positioned as an act associated with closing out a long-standing war/military operation and continuing to clear out the prison camp.
If the enemy in this case weren't labeled as "terrorists", I wonder if it would make any difference to those Republicans who are objecting? There were prisoner of war exchanges after the Vietnam War, the Korean War... It's not new to broker POW exchanges in traditional war; luckily in the case of the Afghanistan "conflict", there was only one American POW.
I'd like to see the exchange terms, but those are classified other than the fact that the Taliban prisoners cannot leave Qatar for at least a year. Hard to say without seeing the terms if this negotiation is likely to soften/weaken the US in the eyes of terrorists.
It is truly awesome that Sgt. Bergdahl ^ is alive and will be reunited with his family after 5 years.
But, I understand the concern that a prisoner of war exchange including senior Taliban officials is the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists and could be incentive for terrorists or enemies of any sort to take Americans hostage as a bargaining chip.
Obama used Qatar's leadership as brokers/middlemen to orchestrate the deal so as not to legitimatize the ousted Taliban in the eyes of the current Afghan leadership, and to stave off criticism of negotiating with terrorists, IMO. I think it was still a negotiation with a deemed "terrorist" organization, no matter who was standing in the middle. And the "terrorists" did well, 5 for 1.
But, Obama also declared yesterday that all troops will be out of Afghanistan in 2 years and the prison at Guantanamo, where the Taliban prisoners were being held, will be shut down. So, seems to me that Sgt. Bergdahl's return is being positioned as an act associated with closing out a long-standing war/military operation and continuing to clear out the prison camp.
If the enemy in this case weren't labeled as "terrorists", I wonder if it would make any difference to those Republicans who are objecting? There were prisoner of war exchanges after the Vietnam War, the Korean War... It's not new to broker POW exchanges in traditional war; luckily in the case of the Afghanistan "conflict", there was only one American POW.
I'd like to see the exchange terms, but those are classified other than the fact that the Taliban prisoners cannot leave Qatar for at least a year. Hard to say without seeing the terms if this negotiation is likely to soften/weaken the US in the eyes of terrorists.