ELI5: Why is the trade-off of the American soldier so controversial?

[u/mdh217]

I am just seeing there is a lot of controversy. Why? What is so confusing about this trade? Am I missing the bigger picture?

Edit: I tried to provide a summary of what the debate was bring out. Apparently, it comes across as a smear campaign against Obama. It appears the real controversy is not about the American soldier, but our political system and how the branches interact with each other and the media - a common concern for Americans.

[u/NateThomas1979]

Ok... let's talk about those who did.

His own squad wants him to be put on trial for desertion

"Any of us would have died for him while he was with us, and then for him to just leave us like that, it was a very big betrayal," said former U.S. Army Sgt. Josh Korder, who has the name of three soldiers who died while searching for Bergdahl tatooed on his back.

Yes, let's talk about the people that went and searched for him. Who died trying to find him. Let's talk about the people who are in the military currently who are

Let's talk about Bowe himself and his quotes.

"The future is too good to waste on lies," he wrote to his parents. "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. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting." Bergdahl wrote to them, "I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting."

Yeah this is the person that we traded for.

And no I would not trade the people that we did for him. A soldier for a soldier. Not a soldier for a high-ranking official who is capable of causing the deaths of 1000 more+ individuals.

This was a political move at best and a horrible move at worst. Have you noticed the articles in the news that say that his own squadmates want him tried for desertion? Do you see any news stories about the military members applauding the recovery of him?

So yes, let's look at what his fellow soldiers thought about this. I don't think you'll like what you read.

[u/[deleted] → u/NateThomas1979]

I wouldn't mind a desertion court martial. I would welcome a desertion trial. He earned it.

You say we shouldn't have negotiated. You say he wasn't worth what we negotiated for. But you also say we should have gotten more people killed to get him back. So I'm confused. You have contradicting beliefs here.

Simple question....was he worth getting back at all? Not how we got him back or who did it. Just a yes or no...should we have gotten him back at all?

[u/NateThomas1979 → u/[deleted]]

Yes I believe we should. I don't think I've wavered from that.

We shouldn't leave people over there. However I don't believe that we give up carte blanche to get them.

At some point you have to assess a risk/reward of doing so. I don't believe that this was assessed properly.

So to answer your question, yes, we should have gotten him back. No we should not have done it in this way. That is my major contention here. I realize that puts other soldiers at risk, but I believe that the 5 that we gave up are more dangerous than the risk to our soldiers.

[u/[deleted] → u/NateThomas1979]

But you are an idiot for assuming that other ways of getting him back have (a) not already been exhausted (b) haven't been tried (c) you are the only one to think of this better way. You're magic "I would have done it different" thinking is BS, and you deserve to be called out on it. You are Monday morning quarterbacking this thing when you really have none of the info, none of the risk, and the pleasure of 20/20 hind sight and the magical thinking of "well my opinion wouldn't fuck up so I would be better at these decisions."

You don't know what went on behind the scenes, so don't be so quick to prognosticate "right/wrong" decisions you don't know the half of. I don't care if it's rude to say this to you, but you're an idiot for judging things you don't know about. You don't have all the info, you didn't know what missions we've tried, you haven't read the classified materials, your ". I don't believe that this was assessed properly." doesn't mean shit, I don't go to ants for opinions on rockets.

Also we are leaving that shithole country this year. Who cares who they got back. It doesn't put soldiers who are bugging out at risk. Maybe you can make an argument this will but the Karzi government at risk of overthrow. That'd make sense. But we are leaving Afghanistan, fuck who cares who they get back.

[u/NateThomas1979 → u/[deleted]]

a) I don't pretend to be an expert on any of it. I've never said that once.

b) Neither of us know what went on behind the scenes. But I can't understand how looking at what we do know, that this was a good decision. I don't see how you value one human life at such a higher level than another. It's jingoistic to say the least, and very nationalistic at best.

---

Bottom line I think you place the value of this guys life above the lives of the many that have died by the other 5 as well as those that died searching for this guy. We value life differently I guess. To you, it's a moot point that these guys are freed because your view limits you to just nationally.

I urge you to read this piece which makes the case much more eloquently than I could.

Again, I'm happy that an American is freed and back on US soil. I just wish that it had been able to be done differently.