Desertions And Deceits

EditorialBy Gregory J. Welborn

President Obama would have us believe that his decision to swap five terrorists for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl was predicated on the highest of moral principles. As the facts now start to spill out, adiposity the reality is anything but honorable, viagra 100mg and it would seem that the Commander-in-Chief and the Sergeant share a common disloyalty to the respective oaths they took.

At the time the prisoner swap was announced, President Obama told the nation that he acted on his moral obligation to do everything possible to bring the sergeant home because “we don’t leave our people behind.” That’s a great soundbite, but it’s not really our policy, nor is it a particularly good practice. You see, the principle is based on the premise that the missing soldier is loyal to his comrades, unit and country, and that he is involuntarily missing.

To make the point clear, nobody believes we should sacrifice blood and treasure to bring home traitors or spies out of any moral concern for their well-being, or to reassure the troops that we always protect our own. Perhaps we would try to bring them home out of a sense of justice because we intend to imprison them for their actions against the constitution and the country, but that is a different rationale entirely – one certainly not entertained, advanced or pursued by President Obama.

No, President Obama made it very clear that he intended to give up five terrorists for one soldier out of moral concern for the soldier and the overall morale of those serving honorably in our armed services. That is why he had his various spokesmen inform the nation on at least six separate occasions I can count that Sergeant Bergdahl served his country with “honor and distinction”. Were that the case, I would be the first to affirm the president’s goal, even if I questioned the price (five able bodied killers who would return to the battlefield) of achieving an otherwise moral goal.

Bowe-bergdahl-taliban-prisoner-swap3

The Army’s announcement this week that they will charge Sergeant Bergdahl with desertion is only the tip of the iceberg. The bigger story is that President Obama lied to the nation about the betrayal of his oath to protect Americans in his decision to make this trade. The army’s announcement only confirms what was absolutely known at the time of the deal.

As soon as the sergeant went missing in 2009, members of his unit suspected he had deserted. Their reports and concerns were documented. A 2010 internal investigation found “incontrovertible” evidence that the sergeant had deserted. There is also an exchange of letters between Bergdahl and his father, uncovered and made public by the press, in which Bowe Bergdahl admitted to being ashamed of being American and having no desire to waste his future on the country’s lies. I wish I could say that his father had a stronger moral compass than his son, but that would not be true. His father encouraged his son to “obey” his warped version of morality.

Every single piece of evidence in this case was known to President Obama at the time he entered into, let alone concluded, negotiations with the Taliban. Bergdahl violated his moral commitment to serve this country and to stand with his unit, and he jeopardized the many who were sent out to search for him. Obama has violated his moral commitment to protect and defend this country by knowingly releasing skilled, trained terrorists and enemy combatants who will return to the battlefield. They will inevitably be responsible for the deaths of American soldiers and more than likely scores more of innocent civilians. This wasn’t just miscalculation; too many facts were known at the time of the decision. This was moral abdication of the worst order.

Why would our president do this? Clearly, morality played no part in this decision, but political calculation most certainly did. The President made a campaign pledge (one that he actually wants to keep) to close Guantanamo Bay. That had been tried with an effort to bring the terrorists housed at Gitmo to the U.S. for “trial” as criminals. The effort didn’t go over so well with average Americans on both sides of the political aisle. But if Gitmo is emptied of the really bad apples, and all that remain are insignificant underlings, then perhaps the military prison can be closed with no objections from the American public. So, sending the true murderers and terrorists back to the battlefield enables the president to eventually make the case that nobody of any significance remains at the prison. Closing it at that point will be but an after-thought.

men-who-died-looking-for-traitor-bergdahl

Men who died trying to find Bergdahl after his purported desertion

These are selfish reasons, not moral reasons. Just as Sergeant Bergdahl made a selfish decision to dishonor his moral duty because it suited his desires at the time, so too has President Obama made a selfish decision to dishonor his moral obligation to protect America because it suited his desires at the time. Sergeant Bergdahl and President Obama share antipathy for our country and for those who truly sacrifice for its well-being, and they share disdain for the moral principles which should guide all of us – most especially the President of The United States. At least Bergdahl was honest enough to confess his true feelings. Obama continues to deny what is all too obvious.

=============================================

Gregory J. Welborn is a freelance writer and has spoken to several civic and religious organizations on cultural and moral issues. He lives in the Los Angeles area with his wife and 3 children and is active in the community. He can be reached [email protected]/5l.com

Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

*Scroll down to post comment

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments