Conjecture of desertion hangs over Taliban's prisoner GI
WASHINGTON — The case of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, held by the Taliban since 2009, has arisen again as the United States and other countries engage in diplomatic efforts to free him.
But if he is released, will America's only prisoner of the Afghan war be viewed as a hero or a deserter?
Though tattered yellow ribbons adorn utility poles in his native Hailey, Idaho, some express conflicting thoughts about Bergdahl's plight as the war winds down, with President Obama threatening to withdraw all troops by year's end unless the Afghan government signs a crucial security agreement.
They are convinced that on June 30, 2009, just a few months after he arrived in Afghanistan, Bergdahl willingly walked away from his unit, which was deployed in Paktika province in eastern Afghanistan, adjacent to the border with Pakistan. While they want Bergdahl home, they think he should have to answer allegations that he deserted his unit.
Bergdahl was last seen in a video the Taliban released in December.
Rolling Stone magazine quoted emails Bergdahl is said to have sent to his parents that suggest he was disillusioned with America's mission in Afghanistan, had lost faith in the Army's mission there and was considering desertion.
Bergdahl told his parents that he was “ashamed to even be American.” Bergdahl, who mailed home boxes containing his uniform and books, wrote: “The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong.”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.