JED BABBIN: OBAMA’S BERGDAHL PROBLEM
http://www.epictimes.com/londoncenter/2015/02/obamas-bergdahl-problem/
President Obama has a problem, and his name is Bowe Bergdahl. Bergdahl apparently deserted his army unit in 2009 and was held by the Haqqani terrorist network for five years. He was released in 2014 in exchange for five high-ranking Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Much to Obama’s consternation the Army is considering whether Bergdahl will be charged with desertion, some lesser offense, or nothing at all. Desertion is a capital crime.
The last US soldier executed for desertion was Pvt. Eddie Slovik, put to death almost exactly seventy years ago on January 31, 1945. Before him, no soldier had been executed for desertion since the Civil War.
But it’s not the fact that Bergdahl could face execution that poses political trouble Obama: it’s the fact that Obama chose to release an entire Taliban command structure in exchange for him. In its effort to make that appear worthwhile, Obama and his political operatives are placing enormous pressure on the Army to not charge Bergdahl with desertion, and maybe let him off without any significant discipline.
To do that, Team Obama has chosen to create a bizarre narrative that attempts to prove: (1) the Taliban aren’t terrorists, so negotiating with them isn’t contrary to US policy against negotiating with terrorists that goes back at least to Teddy Roosevelt’s “Pedicaris alive or Raisuli dead”; and (2) we never leave any soldier behind; so that (3) it was worth any trade to get Bergdahl, even one that swapped some of the most dangerous inmates in Gitmo to get him.
It’s all a steaming pile, and because of that the Army’s decision on Bergdahl is that much more important.
We are so accustomed to President Obama and his team abusing the truth that we had to laugh at White House spokesman Josh Earnest when he insisted that the Taliban aren’t terrorists.
Joshing earnestly, Obama’s chief flack performed a tour de force of verbal gymnastics the other day trying to convince reporters that when we negotiated with the Taliban for Bergdahl’s release we weren’t really negotiating with terrorists.
Earnest said the Taliban weren’t terrorists, just “armed insurgents.” He said, “They do carry out tactics that are akin to terrorism, they do pursue terror attacks in an effort to try to advance their agenda.” The difference between the Taliban and al-Qaida was that the Taliban “have principally been focused on Afghanistan.” He added, “Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that has aspirations that extend beyond just the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.” And he said it all with a straight face.
As my pal Andy McCarthy has written dispositively, it’s perfectly clear that the Taliban are terrorists. Even if you don’t look at the law all we need to remember is that the Taliban were close allies of Usama bin Laden and al-Qaida. It was from their territory that the 9-11 attacks emanated. When President Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum to turn over bin Laden or face war, they chose to protect bin Laden.
To justify Bergdahl’s release by saying we leave no soldier behind, Obama and his spokesmen try to justify the swap of the Taliban commanders for him. But the facts don’t support that conclusion.
I spoke on Friday to a former CIA officer who was also at the time of Bergdahl’s release in a position he described as an “auxiliary military intelligence” officer. This source had established a small but highly effective intelligence network – which neither the CIA nor the military had – in Afghanistan in about 2008. They were first engaged to find New York Times reporter David Rohde.
This source’s group was operating in areas controlled by the Haqqani terrorist network. He was well informed on the Haqqanis, who he insisted were interested only in money. They didn’t care about prisoner releases, only in what sort of ransom they could extract from the Times in exchange for their reporter.
On October 1, 2011 the BBC reported that Haji Mali Khan, a senior leader of the Haqqani – and uncle of the Haqqani’s leader, Siraj Haqqani – had been captured in a raid across the Durand Line, the disputed border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
According to this source, Bergdahl was being held by Mullah Sangeen Zadran, the operations chief for the Haqqanis. Six US troops were reportedly killed while searching for Bergdahl.
Flash forward to the Bergdahl swap. Five Taliban leaders were exchanged for him: Khiurulla Said Wali Khairhwa, the former Taliban interior minister; Mullah Mohammad Fazi, chief of staff of the Taliban army; Mullah Norullah Noori, a Taliban provincial governor believed to have been present when CIA officer Johnny Michael Spann was murdered; Abdul Haq Wasiq, the Taliban’s deputy chief of intelligence; and Mohammed Nabi Omari, member of a joint Taliban-al Qaida cell.
But Mali Khan wasn’t among them. Why?
Almost certainly, a ransom was paid indirectly – by the government of Qatar, on our behalf – to get Bergdahl back. The Haqqani, if they cared about any prisoner’s release, would have demanded Mali Khan. But they didn’t. They only cared about money. Which leads to the conclusion that the Taliban leaders were released to cover the ransom payment, not because it was the only way to obtain Bergdahl’s release.
Viewed logically, there is no justification – even if ransom was paid – for releasing top Taliban commanders at all, far less in a swap for a deserter. These men don’t need to back to the battlefield to fight in the ranks. All they need, while they are supposedly confined in Qatar, is the ability to communicate with the Taliban in order to resume their roles in command and in planning operations of the Taliban and allied terrorists. We know that one of them has tried to do so. There is no reason to believe the others haven’t or that the Qatari government will prevent them from doing so.
All the release of the Taliban leaders did – other than restore a large Taliban capability against us and the Afghan government — was to bring the population of Gitmo down and bring Obama closer to his objective of closing it. So much for Obama’s justification for releasing them.
The Army reportedly wants to prosecute Bergdahl for desertion. According to retired intelligence operator Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer (who is a senior fellow of the London Center for Policy Research, as am I) the Army has decided to go ahead with the prosecution and the Obama administration is delaying them to delay or prevent a major political embarrassment.
Army Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, who is tasked to decide whether Bergdahl, will be prosecuted, has said the decision hasn’t been made, and Pentagon spokesman RAdm. Joh Kirby, insists that is the case. But Shaffer has the better half of this argument. The Army is struggling against Obama’s political maneuver.
What the Army leadership is being subjected to is called “unlawful command influence” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. President Obama is at the top of the chain of command. It’s pretty clear that he is trying to dictate the disposition of Bergdahl’s case, which he may not do legally under the UCMJ. The more that case is delayed, the more likely it is that he will succeed.
Unless the Army prosecutes Bergdahl to the full extent of the law, it will have breached faith with everyone who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially the six who were killed in the increasingly desperate search for him. If the Army doesn’t stand up to Obama’s interference and proceed with Bergdal’s court martial, it will have consented to an illegal action by the Commander in Chief.
Comments are closed.
