Dealing for Bowe Bergdahl: American failure |

Dealing for Bowe Bergdahl: American failure

What a mess. What a mixed message. What nose-thumbing at the law. What a slap to those American soldiers who paid the ultimate price in Afghanistan. And nothing quite like marking other Americans for hostage-taking.

We refer, of course, to President Obama’s weekend “deal” to bring home Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, held captive by the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan for the past five years. In an exchange that The New York Times, in a news story, hilariously called “an important achievement,” America gets back a disillusioned GI who might have gone AWOL and the terrorist world gets back five top Taliban commanders with U.S. blood on their hands and eager for more (after their farcical one-year monitoring in Qatar).

Tsk, tsk, apologists for “humanitarian gestures” will chide us. “This was the right thing to do,” they’re already saying, citing Official Washington pronouncements that Sgt. Bergdahl’s health was deteriorating. But that appears to be a dubious claim at best. And the five tradees really don’t pose much of a threat, they add. That’s delusional.

Not only has the Obama administration established a standard that the United States will negotiate with terrorists, it broke a law requiring congressional notification well in advance of such deals, places Americans abroad at a grave risk for capture (and why not if you can get back five terrorist killers for one American?) and further cements Mr. Obama as being dangerously deferential in the prosecution of foreign policy.

“An important achievement”? That’s a critical failure in our book.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.