The Case of Robert Bowdrie "Bowe" Bergdahl

This member of the United States Army has been formally charged with violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Art. 86: Desertion. In addition to the charge of violation of UCMJ Art. 99: Misbehavior before the Enemy.

In order to fully understand the gravity of these charges, one must understand the UCMJ without the media hype that is present when the talking heads report the news. First, let's look at the two relevant articles of the law.

UCMJ Article 86: Desertion.

“(a) Any member of the armed forces who—

• (1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

• (2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service;  

I have quoted only the relevant portions of the code. It should be noted that Desertion, in this case does not carry the death penalty since as a matter of law, The United States was not in a state of war at the time of the alleged offense.

UCMJ Article 99: Misbehavior before the enemy.

“Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy—

(1) runs away;

(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;

(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;

(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;

(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;

(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;

(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;

(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or

(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle; shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.”

I don't know how many sections of this article Bergdahl will be charged with in the specifications of his Courts-Martial however, it would seem from news reports that he could be charged with most of them.

There will be a formal Article 32 hearing this summer at Fort Hood, TX. This proceeding is similar to a preliminary hearing in the civilian world. The specific charges and specifications will be read out and made public. Certainly, Bergdahl is in a world of trouble.

Now, those are the facts as we know them and the law which applies, so far. It's time for my opinion. There is absolutely no reason to go UA (Unauthorized Absence) or desert in the modern U. S. Military. No one conscripted any member of the force. The Navy and Marine Corps does not send out "Press Gangs" to force (press) unwitting drunks into service. Since 1973, that's 42 years folks; the United States Military has been fully all volunteer.

Prior to actually taking the oath of enlistment, everyone is fully briefed on the facts of life in the military. Namely, that you may be asked to enter combat and fight an armed enemy who is indeed trying to end your life. You still have a chance to back out.

All during training, the idea of fighting is reenforced. In the case of Bergdahl, we were already embroiled in the conflict in Afghanistan and he knew or should have known that there was an excellent chance that he would be sent there in some sort of combat role.

He told his squad/platoon mates that he was going to desert. He actively looked for the enemy. Although he may have started as a prisoner until he gained the trust of his captors, he intended to remain with them and there is photographic evidence of this.  In this regard, he has a large hill to climb to disprove the government's evidence based only on what has been made public. I'm sure the government has more that we have not seen.

Finally and most damning. 6 American servicemen gave their lives to find Bergdahl! His brothers in arms gave their lives in an attempt to save him. They performed their duty with honor and distinction. Nothing will ever bring them back.

The government of the United States traded high ranking terrorists to secure the return of a person who at best, disgraced his uniform. At worst he is a deserter and escapes the firing squad only due to a technicality in the law.

Some have said that Bergdahl has suffered enough. I disagree.  He has not suffered nearly enough to compensate the families of those who lost their lives searching for him. He has not suffered enough to compensate his Unit and the United States Army for the loss of faith he has caused them to suffer. He has not suffered enough to compensate the people of the United States who placed a sacred trust in him when he took the oath of enlistment. He was trusted to safeguard all of us!

He has the gall to wear the uniform of a Sergeant in the U. S. Army. Even wearing a Private's uniform, he is a disgrace.

I will watch the case with interest as it unfolds. I do not hold out much hope that he will receive more than a slap on the hand as long as the current political climate prevails in Washington, DC.

Take a moment to remember all of our men and women who serve in uniform, in harm's way today. They honor each of us with their truly honorable service.

As always...  

*Please note that in this article I did not use Bergdahl's awarded rank. To call him a Sergeant wold insult everyone who has ever held the rank of NCO/Petty Officer in the U. S. Military.

We didn't go to war for your entertainment.

Recently, a friend of mine saw the movie "American Sniper". She complained after seeing this Clint Eastwood epic that it left her depressed. This observation created a firestorm of comment from her "friends" about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of THIS war.

The thread of the conversation continued in the vein that the movie was not entertaining at all and that the "fault" of the war was that of President George W. Bush. Apparently,  he started this war, so it's his fault. There was also blame place at the feet of the current President which caused more firestorm.

This reminds me of those folks during the Second Wold War who referred to the conflict as "Mr. Roosevelt's" war. I will not go into the historical record nor debate the policies of an Administration, long out of power. As I will not debate who's war the conflict in Iraq/Afghanistan is/was.

The responsibility for the conflict, at this point is not the relevant issue. Actually, that is for history to judge. This war and any military conflict was not embarked upon for the entertainment of the people. In this case, by entertainment; I am speaking of the elitist,  sudo-intelligent, think tank sort of discussion you would find in the wealthier households in any large city cocktail party. (Pinkies up, please.)

You see, the problem is simple. These intellectual snobs think that by discussing who is responsible for a world problem (as long as it's not the party they belong to) they are somehow aiding in it's solution. In fact, they not only detract from any real solutions, they have no real world answers.

These "Think tank liberals" fail to understand one central issue about war and armed conflict. It is NOT they or the politicians who bear the burden of war. Sure, they will see the casualties returning home in the flag draped caskets. Honor guards salute as flags wave and politicians look somber. They will say "Isn't that a nice tribute?" or "Oh, that's such a shame." But, it's all talk. In real terms they do nothing to help.

Oh, certainly, they will thank a member of the Armed Forces for their service. But, it's done mostly out of political correctness. On September 10, 2001 no one said "Thank you for your service." to military personnel as a matter of routine.

I personally did not see and do not plan on seeing "American Sniper." I've seen friends perish in the service. I've seen the destruction of war. I do understand that the movie is graphic. Good. And if it depresses people, even better. War should be depressing. It should be depicted as terrifying. It is that! I know to many mothers who lived on pins and needles for 6 or 9 or 12 months while their child was deployed to the combat zone.

All during my Naval career, my mother told me that she was worried every day I was deployed. Try living in fear of the telephone ringing. Live in fear of the unexpected knock at the door. I know countless families who have had that experience. Ask them if war is depressing. Trust me, they don't care who started the war. They are well familiar with who had to fight it. Most continue to fight it from their homes today.

War, to the Soldier, Sailor, Airmen or Marine who must fight it is not geopolitical theory. Leave that to the college professors. Talk is cheap. The brave men and women who march, fly or sail into harm's way do not need to discuss the ramifications of war on the social structure of a society. They live it and are transformed by it. Unfortunately, to many never recover.

I'm not only talking about the wounds we can see. If a person is killed, it is easy to see the result. We have all seen the ceremony. If a person is maimed, we can see that too. But, there are THOUSANDS who return with TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) which is a wound you don't see but you can take my word for it, the service member feels every day along with his family.

We've all heard the term PTSD, POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER. This illness has symptoms which can be as mild as slight difficulty sleeping to suicide! Everything in between is what our Veterans must contend with.

So, no. I will not go see this movie because of my own reasons. I would leave the theater in tears. I just wish that those who want to blame anyone for the war and feel they are so helpful to our society because of their indignation would realize who pays the toll for their conversation.

Always remember the words of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. "Above all others, it is the Soldier who prays for PEACE. For he must bear the burden and pay the price for war."

It's not an entertainment. It's real and it has consequences in the real world. I'm glad the movie depressed my friend. It should have.

Hopefully, my next blog will be more upbeat.

As always...

It takes more than Faith.

"The Navy Chaplain Corps comprises more than 800 Navy Chaplains from more than 100 different faith groups, including Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and many others. Each Chaplain is also a Navy Officer – meaning each holds an important leadership role.

Chaplains offer everything from faith leadership to personal advice to much-needed solace. All while living up to the guiding principles of the Chaplain Mission:

• Providing religious ministry and support to those of your own faith
• Facilitating the religious requirements of those from all faiths
• Caring for all service members and their families, including those subscribing to no specific faith
• Advising the command in ensuring the free exercise of religion"

(From Navy.com)

Recently, there was a news item which asked opinion as to wether a U.S. Navy Chaplain who was being processed for discharge after 19 years of service should in fact be separated from the service. 

I read with interest, this story. Many Navy Chaplains are friends of mine. Anyone who knows me will tell you that if I see a Navy Chaplain, I will stop an say hello. During my time in the Navy and since retirement, the Chaplain was always a friendly face and a source of advice and comfort. So, any story of a Chaplain being forced to leave the Navy peeks my interest.

I will get into the story in a moment and my opinion will become clear. But first, a little background about Chaplains. If you have read the above excerpt from Navy.com, you will see that no place does it say that Chaplains are to recruit members to their Faith.  Further, it specifically states that the Chaplain is to care for ALL service members of all Faiths and of NO faith. In other words, don't try to sell your beliefs or moral judgements onto those you are there to help. You are there for EVERYONE.

Now, on to the Chaplain in question. It seems that he had a problem with some of the Navy's policies regarding women and homosexuals. (Just the description of his problem was hard for me to type)

He didn't like women because they would get pregnant and pregnancy without the benefit of marriage is against HIS faith. He would counsel young, unmarried women that they were bad people and that they would be punished by the Lord for engaging in pre-marital intercourse. Worse, their child was an abomination, a bastard. I thought these attitudes went away sometime in the last 50 years. Certainly, I do not understand how remarks along these lines could be considered counseling and for the betterment of the service member, Command or military community at large.

Next we move on to the issue of this Chaplain's stand on gay rights. Very simply, he believed that it was appropriate to inform service members who identified as homosexual that they and their life style were an abomination, forbidden by the written word of the Bible. He went on to counsel what the proper use of the human sexual organs were, in his (and presumably the Lord's) view.

Upon hearing the complaints of members of this Chaplains command, an investigation ensued. The results of which recommended that the officer in question be separated from the service. 

The news article which reported all of this asked readers to comment as to wether they agreed with the Chaplain or the Command. My comment was simple. 2 words: Discharge Him!

Here is my reasoning.

1. The Chaplain in question stated that he was just acting in accordance with his Faith. There is a problem with this defense. All Chaplains serve in the Military with the permission of their home Church. This permission is in the form of a written authorization to the Military Department in which they wish to serve. So, the Chaplain, if he feels that he can no longer carry out his duties in accord with the teachings of his Church; all he need do is request that his Church revoke his permission to serve in the Navy. He would be processed for discharge.

2. Chaplains, as noted from the Navy's own web page, are required to serve all hands, regardless of faith. The counselor's faith has not one thing to do with how he is expected to counsel service members in the secular world. If he can not make the switch from the spiritual to the secular world when dealing with his charges, he can not perform his duties and he should request discharge.

3. Finally. In the story comments, many people applauded this particular Chaplain for standing on his Faith. Somehow, they saw him as a David standing on the plain, facing a Goliath. His slingshot in hand, as the weapon to protect HIS FAITH from the non-believers. I beg to disagree in the strongest possible terms! Military Chaplains are required to minister to their "flocks" in accordance with directives and instructions from higher authority. That is higher EARTHLY authority. In this case, the Chaplain knew what the Department of the Navy policy was and he chose to ignore it in favor of a policy of his own making. That is a dereliction of duty and a violation of trust. He violated the oath he took when he was commissioned. He violated the trust the Navy placed in him. Worse, he violated the trust of those people who sought him out for help.  

Faith had nothing to do with this issue. The Chaplain in question was in it for himself. The Navy determined that he was "Intolerant". That is putting it mildly. If anyone else had acted in this way, there would have been no question as to the disposition of their service.

The questions this officer raised are just plain silly. Pre-marital sex has been around since the institution of marriage. Homosexuality has been around longer than that. Who cares?

You have to do what is right for you. I've said this time and time again. We need to get out of each other's bedrooms and embrace the things that we all have in common. I have friends who are gay, straight and as crooked as they come. I honestly do not care what they do in their private life. Live and let live.

Oh, to the Chaplain, if you think people are going to stop having sex because they are not married, you might need more than a discharge. You may need to become a solitary monk.

I hope I've made my position clear. This story had been bothering me since I first read it last week. Thaks for putting up with me.

As always...