Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Spring Fund Drive: Keep CounterPunch Afloat
CounterPunch is a lifeboat of sanity in today’s turbulent political seas. Please make a tax-deductible donation and help us continue to fight Trump and his enablers on both sides of the aisle. Every dollar counts!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Whose Decision Was a Greater Threat to Soldiers’ Lives: President Bush’s or Bowe Bergdahl’s?

White House photo by Paul Morse | Public Domain

I’m admitting I made a horrible mistake.

—  Bowe Bergdahl’s testimony in his court martial

Charging a man with murder in Vietnam is like charging someone for speeding at the Indianapolis 500.

– From Apocalypse Now

Obviously, to ask who endangered soldiers more, President George W. Bush or Bowe Bergdahl, is a rhetorical question. The real issue is whether a Dishonorable Discharge, a demotion and a fine is enough punishment for Bo Bergdahl. It’s clear by now it’s out-of-bounds (poor etiquette) to suggest our major leaders should be held accountable for bad military decisions that put soldiers in harms way and cost lives. It’s a variant of the bumper sticker, “Kill one person, it’s murder; kill 100,000, it’s foreign policy.” Accountability is like gravity; it slips and falls and tends to find the most susceptible person or entity that can be turned into a receptacle for the blame. Naturally, you wave the flag like crazy while guiding the blame downward. Unless, of course, you were Japanese at the height of their failed, imperial thrust into the world; then, you made martial sounds as you sliced your guts open and a loyal factotum lopped your head off. There’s a certain honor in that.

The question of moral and political accountability is a perennial one. It’s hard to find anyone in either major party who still holds on to the idea the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq by George W. Bush — the “war president” and “the decider” — was anything but a terrible foreign policy decision. As the younger President Bush put it: “I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best.” Those of us who cried out in vain from the beginning that the decision to invade Iraq was wrong and could lead nowhere but to even worse disasters now see it as a decision that unleashed a debacle that keeps on paying dangerous dividends. President Bush ducked under the radar after his part in it was over and started doing what he probably should have done from the beginning: He painted not-so-bad, primitive paintings of veterans, dogs and his toes in the bathtub.

The lack of accountability at the top is especially acute right now when nuclear war looms over us vis-a-vis North Korea. Not only does the current commander-in-chief not accept accountability — “the buck” no longer stops in the Oval Office — he’s a master in the cultural realm he flourishes in at finding and flogging scapegoats. His “base” will let him get away with, as he famously put it, shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. In Bergdahl’s case, he wanted the man executed. If he had his way, it would be something produced by Faye Dunaway’s character in the film Network: “The Execution Hour”.

We don’t have much to rejoice over these days, but it seems appropriate to send out three-cheers to Army Colonel Jeffery R. Nance, the judge who handed down the Solomon-like Bergdahl sentence and who, thus, has elevated himself to the much-vaunted position of “adult in the room.” He’s especially worth honoring when you consider the absurdities going on in Guantanamo, where a Colonel in charge of trying one of the bombers of the USS Cole put a Brigadier General in jail for contempt because he would not go along with an outrageous decision. The action was so authoritarian in nature and the flak so loud, that General John Baker, the number two lawyer in the Marine Corps, has been freed. So let’s give a shout-out to both Colonel Nance and General Baker for having the backbone to exhibit modern “profiles in courage” in the context of post-9/11 military courts going rogue. Given the incredible regime of secrecy citizens live under and the gang sitting in the White House, these days it’s individual cogs like these brave officers who stand between us and a tyrannical point-of-no-return.

We might do a bit of ju-jitsu on Nancy Reagan and encourage more people in the system to “Just Say No!”  Mutiny as national service.

The Bergdahl case is especially instructive.

Here you have a fellow who joined the US Army who ends up in Afghanistan. He was involved in enough “combat” to earn a Combat Infantry Badge (CIB), something that is not awarded lightly. In fact, Four-Star General Stanley McChrystal, famous for The Surge in Iraq, did not have a CIB; instead, he wore an Expert Infantry Badge, which meant he was very good at being an infantryman, maybe even a genius at managing infantrymen, but he was never in real combat. So Bergdahl was not a slouch in Afghanistan. Was he mentally not the most together person? Maybe. Did he have some kind of gripe about his superior out in the field that he deluded himself into thinking it was a wise decision to walk to the main base through hostile country to report it? That seems to be the case. The merits of his grievance aside, who out there thinks, once he was captured for straying from his unit, that anyone in the military command was going to give any credence to his grievance? At that point, the gravity rule for accountability factored into the case and Bergdahl was dog meat in the chain of command.

Under the Obama administration, martial pride and the political value of blood vengeance were not the top priorities; diplomacy was more important to Obama. And though it would be wrong to say “peace” was President Obama’s main goal (he did a lot to sustain perennial war and to increase drone killings), he wasn’t so enamored with calling for blood vengeance as a goose-stepping political tactic. In fact, it’s interesting to ponder what might have been Bergdahl’s sentence under President Obama’s more “progressive,” less blood-thirsty regime. Not under pressure to counter an outrageous White House, might a small prison time have been the moderate order of the day? Under Obama, a profile in courage posture might not have been an issue. We can speculate ‘til the cows come home; the point is, there may be a welcomed backfire-effect in the system thanks to Donald Trump’s love for viciousness. From the vantage point of an ex-enlisted-man nobody, I wonder if we’re seeing an upper-level brass version of the response one often heard from soldiers in Vietnam when they did something officially against the rules: “Hey! Send me to Vietnam.”

Decent, ordinary citizens doomed to watch the Trump administration and the US Congress stick it to them in broad daylight can only hope something is afoot and there are more of these profiles in courage within the system. They may not represent a panacea for the future, and let’s not delude ourselves, they certainly don’t represent a leftist upheaval or even reform. But, while we await the revolution, they do suggest sanity and maturity does exist among the energized, goose-stepping militarists.

 

More articles by:

JOHN GRANT is a member of ThisCantBeHappening!, the new independent, uncompromised, five-time Project Censored Award-winning online alternative newspaper. 

Weekend Edition
May 25, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
Could Anything Cause the GOP to Dump Trump?
Pete Tucker
Is the Washington Post Soft on Amazon?
Conn Hallinan
Iran: Sanctions & War
Jeffrey St. Clair
Out of Space: John McCain, Telescopes and the Desecration of Mount Graham
John Laforge
Senate Puts CIA Back on Torture Track
David Rosen
Santa Fe High School Shooting: an Incel Killing?
Gary Leupp
Pompeo’s Iran Speech and the 21 Demands
Jonathan Power
Bang, Bang to Trump
Robert Fisk
You Can’t Commit Genocide Without the Help of Local People
Brian Cloughley
Washington’s Provocations in the South China Sea
Louis Proyect
Requiem for a Mountain Lion
Robert Fantina
The U.S. and Israel: a Match Made in Hell
Kevin Martin
The Libya Model: It’s Not Always All About Trump
Susie Day
Trump, the NYPD and the People We Call “Animals”
Pepe Escobar
How Iran Will Respond to Trump
Sarah Anderson
When CEO’s Earn 5,000 Times as Much as a Company’s Workers
Ralph Nader
Audit the Outlaw Military Budget Draining America’s Necessities
Chris Wright
The Significance of Karl Marx
David Schultz
Indict or Not: the Choice Mueller May Have to Make and Which is Worse for Trump
George Payne
The NFL Moves to Silence Voices of Dissent
Razan Azzarkani
America’s Treatment of Palestinians Has Grown Horrendously Cruel
Katalina Khoury
The Need to Evaluate the Human Constructs Enabling Palestinian Genocide
George Ochenski
Tillerson, the Truth and Ryan Zinke’s Interior Department
Jill Richardson
Our Immigration Debate Needs a Lot More Humanity
George Payne
The Direction of No Return: a Meditation on America’s Decent into Tyranny
Judith Deutsch
Pension Systems and the Deadly Hand of the Market
Shamus Cooke
Oregon’s Poor People’s Campaign and DSA Partner Against State Democrats
Thomas Barker
Only a Mass Struggle From Below Can End the Bloodshed in Palestine
Binoy Kampmark
Australia’s China Syndrome
Missy Comley Beattie
Say “I Love You”
Ron Jacobs
A Photographic Revenge
Saurav Sarkar
War and Moral Injury
Clark T. Scott
The Shell Game and “The Bank Dick”
Seth Sandronsky
The State of Worker Safety in America
Thomas Knapp
Making Gridlock Great Again
Manuel E. Yepe
The US Will Have to Ask for Forgive
Laura Finley
Stop Blaming Women and Girls for Men’s Violence Against Them
Rob Okun
Raising Boys to Love and Care, Not to Kill
Kevin Martin
It’s Not Always All About Trump
Christopher Brauchli
What Conflicts of Interest?
Winslow Myers
Real Security
George Wuerthner
Happy Talk About Weeds
Abel Cohen
Give the People What They Want: Shame
Douglas Valentine
Memorial Day
May 24, 2018
Gary Leupp
Art of the Dealbreaker: Trump’s Cancellation of the Summit with Kim
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail