Report: Army Knew Where Bergdahl Was, Didn't Want To Risk Soldiers Lives Saving A Deserter

Via @lachlan, this is not really surprising.

Commanders on the ground debated whether to pull the trigger on a rescue several times in recent years, according to one of the sources, a former high-level intelligence official in Afghanistan, who said the conclusion each time was that the prospect of losing highly trained troops was too high a price to pay for rescuing a soldier who walked away from his unit before being captured by the enemy.

A second source told The Washington Times that the rescue operation plans were “high risk” and became even less attractive in recent months when officials in the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command grew convinced that the Taliban and the militant Haqqani network, whose operatives were holding Sgt. Bergdahl, were eager to cut a deal for his release.

“Joint Special Operations Command always had the rescue mission on the table and it was entirely under their ownership, but the big question centered on whether Bergdahl was somebody you risk lives for when you still have time and space to maneuver diplomatically,” said the source, a high-level congressional aide, who, like the former intelligence official, spoke only on the condition of anonymity.

Naturally the left is freaking out that other people are upset that the US traded 5 dangerous terrorists for a deserter.

As much as professional Obama sycophants want to pretend that opposition to this swap comes from rightwing hacks, the reality is the most vocal opponents are the men who served with Bergdahl and other veterans.

It's really no surprise that the left is taking up Bergdahl's cause. Aside from protecting Obama, Bergdahl is exactly the only kind of soldier people on the left really like, a deserter who was "ashamed to be an American".

posted by DrewM. at 10:36 AM

| Access Comments