Many on the left insist that those on the right reflexively oppose President Obama. When they are being charitable to the right, the left doesn't insist it is based on racism.
I find those claims repulsive and simply intended to shut down debate, but no matter.
When the news of Bergdahl's release came out, my reaction was guarded but I gave the administration the benefit of the doubt, was at least glad we had a soldier home (ignoring for the moment the unclear nature of how he fell into Taliban custody), and looked for good things about the trade.
Sure, the dad in full Taliban-style beard gave me pause to wonder if something was amiss. But still, his son was held prisoner. Who am I to judge that? I'm sure lots of fathers of our troops held by Germany in World War II grew little black moustaches in solidarity with their child POW, right? So I let that go.
Then I heard about who we released to get Bergdahl--5 hardened terrorists those in the know did not want released.
And the president violated statutes to make the deal.
And the events of Bergdahl's disappearance made it clear that he left on his own.
And let's not forget that 6 American troops may have died in missions directly related to finding Bergdahl.
And Bergdahl himself looks less honorable:
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl left a letter the night he disappeared from his base in Afghanistan saying he wanted to renounce his citizenship, according to sources, and previously expressed his disillusionment with the Army, telling his father in an e-mail he was "ashamed" to be an American.
The story the administration wanted started out as Saving Private Ryan.
Now the question is whether the story will be The Execution of Private Slovik or Man Without a Country.
I like to believe that I largely succeed in looking at events coolly and analyzing them without regard to political party in power. I built a career on that ability.
I like to believe that I look at events as an American and as someone who pretends--by education and interest--to be able to offer intelligent commentary on foreign policy, war, and defense issues, and not as a political partisan.
My commentary on the evolving story of Bergdahl, I think, shows that I do try to reach my idealized image of my analysis. I gave the benefit of the doubt at first but new information required me to adjust my view of the deal.
I just want the right story to be told. You may disagree with my assessment. As is your right, of course.
UPDATE: I will say that the deal might not turn out bad despite the bad foundation. One, as I mentioned in my first post, if we can discredit the terrorists we released, the jihadis might not trust them at all. heck, they might kill the 5 for us.
Or we might kill them, I suppose. Or arrange a lot of unfortunate accidents.
And I do think that it is good for all our troops to know we will get them back if they are lost--even if we think they defected. What might a prisoner feel if he was wrongly portrayed as defecting and so knew he would not be rescued?
This article in defense of the deal raised both issues as positive aspects.
Of course, one component of this working out okay is that Bergdahl should face court martial for surrendering to and working with the Taliban, to clarify what happened.
