Very real military problem
The president of the United States is the commander in chief over all branches of the Military. It is a historic time, given that no military member goes public to speak negatively about the commander.
But now, with the Veteran’s Hospital scandal in full bloom, after the administration’s smokescreen about what triggered the deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy at Benghazi and after the president’s tepidly received speech at West Point announcing diplomacy will replace military responses henceforth, the time for silence is over.
Now, career military personnel are speaking out through gritted teeth, insisting they speak for active duty personnel who cannot talk without being punished. They are speaking about injustice, ineptitude and impeachment.
The era of silence changed after President Obama’s super-secret prisoner swap — five “high risk” Taliban prisoners from Gitmo in exchange for one U.S. Army solider held for nearly five years in Afghanistan. The fact that the soldier, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, walked away from his unit leaving a note saying he was “disillusioned with the Army,” did not support his commander in chief’s mission in Afghanistan and was, “leaving to start a new life,” left military types stunned that the president would stage a Rose Garden ceremony with Bergdahl’s parents.
“I’m just surprised the president was dumb enough to stand next to them,” Major Mike Lyons told me. “It’s another example of him (Obama) reading the tea leaves wrong.”
Lyons, a West Point graduate (class of 1983) is a highly skilled strategic operations specialist with a resume as long as your arm. He surmises the extraordinary secrecy surrounding the prisoner transfer boomeranged on the president.
“What do I think is part of the reason the president did it? He just didn’t get good advice about the swap and the aftermath. This is not a stellar soldier. He has lots of liabilities,” Lyons said. Not the least of Bergdahl’s liabilities are unconfirmed reports that as many as six soldiers died in Afghanistan’s Paktika Province during missions to rescue him from the Taliban.
None of the almost dozen military men I heard from were against bringing Bergdahl home (save for one former Marine Capitan and CIA Special Ops member who told me, “If the evidence had been clear from the beginning that this soldier had deserted his unit … then “no soldier left behind” does not apply, for he is no longer a soldier in the U.S. in our eyes.”) It was the way in which the president negotiated Bergdahl’s return that rankles.
Former Navy Seal Steve Robinson, who works with the POW Network, says he is personally disgusted that the United States has now negotiated with terrorists because it sends a signal to the enemy that if they capture an American soldier, the U.S. will eventually bargain with them.
He’s equally disgusted to learn that soldiers from Bergdahl’s unit were made to sign non-disclosure agreements not to talk about the missing soldier, the incriminating note he left behind or his odd behavior.