system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV - "We don't leave a man behind" isn't just a platitude, it's a key tenet that is essential for morale.

When a young person is contemplating joining the US military, it gets explained to them that, should something bad happen, they will not get left behind, no matter what. That tenet, it seems to me, is absolutely essential to recruiting and to the continued morale of those in service. There are no asterisks for a very good reason. 


Soldiers in the field endure a lot of stress, and sometimes they do stupid things. Sometimes they desert or commit crimes or go crazy. Putting people into those sorts of situations will do that. But a soldier in the field KNOWS that no matter what, even if he goes crazy or goes AWOL and gets captured by the enemy, he will not be left to rot. That knowledge gives a soldier the faith he or she needs to risk their lives. Knowing that doctrine is in place is what convinces young people that they can put their lives into the hands of an institution, and that no matter what, they will not be forgotten about.


I find all of the talk about how Bergdahl was a deserter, and should have been left behind, to be deeply disturbing. He is a US soldier, and if he committed any crimes, then the US army will punish him. But the reason we don't leave a man behind isn't primarily for the lost soldiers benefit, it's for the soldier in the fields benefit, so he or she doesn't have to worry about whether or not anybody would come looking for them should they get lost, even if there are unsavory rumors about them.


I am posting this here because I have found this forum to be one of the better at generating interesting discussions. I have never been in the military, and don't claim to have any real knowledge of how battlefield stress effects people. I am open to changing my views, and will gladly hand out deltas to anyone who can help me evolve my thoughts on the subject in any way.
gpt
>it's a key tenet that is essential for morale.   

The first problem with your argument is simple; you think that this particular exchange is good for morale.  The second problem with your argument is that you imply that there were only two courses of action- never getting this man back, or accept the deal to free our most viscous enemies.    

I'll tackle the second issue first.  The people who are upset with this transfer aren't upset because they would rather have left him behind.  They are upset because we did something so terrible, so unthinkably dangerous, something arguably illegal, to get him released.  There is a reason we don't negotiate with terrorist organizations.  We could have waited until another opportunity to reclaim our soldier and we didn't.  The taliban said they wanted their leaders back and Obama immediately jumped on the opportunity.  

Now on to the morale issue.  You suggest that trading terrorist leaders for one soldier is somehow something that will raise the morale of the troops (or at least keep it on an even keel).  But you seem not to have been paying attention to the troops who have been very vocal about their opposition to this exchange.  Do you know why they are so upset?  It's because there is now a precedent set.  Now our enemies know that all they have to do is kidnap any single soldier they can get their hands on and they will be rewarded with whatever they ask for.  

There is a reason we don't negotiate with terrorists- it emboldens them.  It rewards their terrible behavior and it makes them more aggressive towards obtaining the next pawn they see.    

It's a game of chess and Obama just gave up his queen, his knights and his bishops just because the other side said that they might eventually take a pawn that's been under threat since the beginning of the game.  How would that make you feel if you were in the armed forces and you realized that your own commander and chief was so easily outsmarted by our enemies???  

Morale is down.