nsplayr

Dude, take your pick of sources and you'll get a different opinion.. https://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-taliban-prisoners-20140606-story.html#page=1 I stand by that none of us armchair quarterbacks here (myself included) know the true value of keeping these guys as detainees (forever?) vs the value of releasing them in order to get Bergdahl back. I'm inclined to believe it was worth it for various reasons I've discussed although it's hard to say for sure. Maybe you disagree. What would have been your alternate plan?

First off, I strongly disagree that the 5 who were released were the "Top 5." Whether you're talking top 5 high-value detainees, top 5 Taliban, etc., they don't meet that mark no matter how you measure it. That's point #1. One, or as your argue two, of these guys were real, hard-core assholes when we rolled them up; I say the case on the other 2-3 is murky at best, although they surely are more radicalized after spending 10+ years down there but in many ways that's to be expected based on our policies. To answer your question, I don't know the appropriate relative value of prisoners in our detention. I didn't take part in the negotiations, don't know the circumstances of how the deal unfolded, etc. So it's hard to say. That would be a nuanced position to take for anyone who wasn't privy to all the details. I'm glad we got our guy back first and foremost, and we'll have to let history judge whether releasing these guys was "worth it" or not if we're even able to judge that definitively. Not that that's reasonable...people who don't trust the President or the administration will throw spears and just intuitively think the deal was bad and people who support the President will generally feel oppositely. Neither position is logically defensible because frankly there aren't that many people who have access to all the right information to make a judgement, and truthfully pretty much everyone who does also has political leanings and/or an agenda. Military tribunals aren't ideal since they look like kangaroo courts, even if we take pains to make them as legitimate as possible. If a person is legitimately a war criminal and we have evidence proving that, try them in a "real" court, namely one that's legitimate in the eyes of the world. Our entire enterprise at Guantanamo, from the detentions to the tribunals, is tainted with illegitimacy and I can't disagree based on what we've done with the guys down there. I have little doubt most of those guys are bad dudes (and if they weren't before they certainly are now), but that doesn't mean we just throw out the law and international norms. My suggestion is real trials, real convictions, and real federal prisons for anyone we have legit evidence on, and release to third countries if we're unable to convict them. That's a decision that carries a decent amount of risk but at this point unless the whole population of the prison falls into a black hole we have to do something with them and close that place down as soon as practical. It's done nothing but hurt our moral standing in the world and if we have legit evidence on guys let's hear it so their crimes are known and their punishment is public.

Sounds great, let's bring them to the US and try them in federal court. Should have done that as soon as we rolled them up. Problem is that A) Enough people in Congress from both parties are against it to prevent it from happening, and B) We indefinitely detained these people without charges for 10+ years and likely tortured some of them...kinda makes a trial difficult after that. So while it seems like we agree trials would be best, what's your solution to dealing with these guys assuming you're not a fan of trading them for our guy? Well they weren't just released, they were traded. And I'm all for drawing down to our residual CT and embassy protection force as soon as practical. I'm hopeful that either of the next Presidents (Abdullah or Ghani) aren't as big of assholes as Karzi turned out to be but let's get dudes out of the FOBs as soon as we can, the COIN war and forward posture isn't worth the risk anymore. 1. Kony was supposed to be funny...#Kony2012. He's the meme of every bad guy we're going after. 2. Agreed, although there are some guys worth getting for their intelligence value that become a problem later if you can't try them or hand them over to a legit partner government. 3. What's your solution? The dudes that are Afghan Taliban absolutely should be charged or released at the conclusion of our combat operations in Afghanistan. If it's not clear I'm not a fan of indefinite detention without charges, even for guys who are huge assholes. Charge them, kill them rather than capture them in the first place, release them to a legit Afghan government that will continue to detain them (haha, unlikely), but keeping essentially POWs from the War in Afghanistan in Guantanamo forever isn't a good plan. 4. Again, what's your solution? At this point I don't know if there's a lot to salvage...hopefully Karzi will wind up meeting the pointy end of something sharp, maybe the next guy will be better, and we can keep some SOF dudes around to strike actual, no-shit AQ/HQN/TTP/etc. targets rather than trying to secure villages or chase our tail after the next "mid-level Taliban commander." 5. Totally agree...Bergdahl if our guy regardless of his alleged crimes and we get our guys back, period.

The top 5? Lol. These guys were members of the Taliban and I'm sure hate us (wouldn't you after 10+ years of essentially illegal detention), but come on, this wasn't bin Laden, Zawahiri, Wuhayshi, Shekau and Joseph f'in Kony. One guy wasn't even high-level, 3 others were political guys more than field commanders or terrorist facilitators and not particularly radical as far as Taliban go, and one guy was a real hard core cock-sucker who surrendered to the NA and who probably should have just been killed rather than turned over to us in the first place. I don't know enough to make a 100% defensible judgement on whether or not these guys were super-valuable or not, but I'm guessing you don't know either, and frankly with the war winding down we kinda have to deal with these dudes one way or another. What's your alternate solution...summary execution? Trials in the US? Indefinite, illegal detention in Cuba? Not a lot of great options IMHO. I've been to many of those same memorials and to me the best thing to do that honors our dead brothers is to end the War in Afghanistan under the best circumstances possible and continue pounding these a-holes from afar whenever they pop their heads out of the sand. Releasing Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo was an inevitability in terms of actually ending the war, might as well get our guy back while we're at it even if he's not the most shining example of military discipline & bravery. Dude, probably not a great idea to be saying stuff like that out loud. You know, as an active duty officer beholden to the UCMJ. There's just no need to go down that path.

Shack. The grass isn't greener on the other (civilian) side, but there are indeed multiple different lawns you can try. The grass I've experienced on AD has only been one color and despite the fact that I actually like my job a lot, the color of that grass wasn't doing it for me anymore. BL: I'm getting out because then I have options, I'm in the driver's seat, and I can decide what's best for my family. There will indeed be sacrifices and not all options are better options than what I'm doing now, but the choices will be mine and ours.

Not this shit again... WRT the actual article, I vote good news. AQ has specifically told its followers in the West, in English, sic "Don't come to Yemen, don't come to Pakistan, buy and/or some weapons and strike on your own wherever you happen to live." Pick up a copy of Inspire sometime, good light reading...just remember to google search on your buddy's computer. If we're finally taking that kind of threat more seriously and trying to bring about more interagency cross-talk after Fort Hood and Boston then I say good...we should have been doing that all along.

Better update my ISOPREP, my pre-briefed GTAS was a huge cock and balls pointing toward my hole-up site...

Checks.

Yikes HerkFE...let's recap your rant: First we jump to conclusions, next we let the enemy handle our justice, then we torture active duty service members. Did I summarize that correctly? Here's my thought process: Is he a traitor? Unknown for certain, debrief necessary, leads us to want to repatriate. If he fucked up (highly likely) in a way that's against the UCMJ, does he deserve appropriate justice? Yes, all signs point to repatriation, the Taliban can't and won't provide the justice we should seek. If others died to bring him back do we complete the mission or give up? Honor those who died, bring him back and complete the mission. That's how I see it anyways.

Had a pilot buddy waiting so long for a decision on medical retirement he applied for FY14 VSP and was approved. That's how fucked up MEB bureaucracy is...VSP processing was faster!

Is there some kind of requirement that you cannot deploy w/in 6 months (or some arbitrary timeframe) or is it just that you can't be forced to do so?

IMHO having our diplomats and the Agency completely pull out of AFG in 1992 was a huge mistake and significantly contributed to our lack of knowledge about the extent to which the Taliban government was harboring AQ and allowing them to actively plan attacks on the homeland. Not sure there was another viable option w/ the Taliban in control, but not having anyone on the ground and having to trust the Pakistanis and occasional contact with the Northern Alliance certainly didn't help with 2001 rolled around and suddenly we wanted back in with some urgency. We should only totally pull out our diplomatic and intelligence collection apparatus under the most dire of circumstances; the state department and Agency know what the risks are and willingly accept them.

To the crew of Ratchet 33 and all the others who are gone but never forgotten.

Good idea chuck. Thread created in this forum. Go forth and prosper.

Per the VSP thread, I agree it's a good idea. Post all your FY14 & 15 VSP/TERA/PC/seperations lessons learned here. The intent seems to be so that guys can speak somewhat directly to those leaders staying in so they in turn can better create an environment where buckets of experienced guys aren't trying to leave at the first opportunity. I'm getting out soon (non-VSP or PC unfortunately) and will post my own contributions when I'm not on my phone.

Mummm...bacon... Congrats dude & to all the other VSP parolees.

Agreed...I've met several LTs from SEC schools that don't speak English fluently

I'm hired under the RC-26 mission right now since legally that's what the unit is fragged for. The expectation is that MC-12s will get approved IVO June and that they will hit the ramp IVO fall before the first RC-26s ever would so in theory the RC-26 is a placeholder of sorts. So technically all the dudes hired in the recent past are set to be a RC-26 Pilots and Mission Systems Officers but the idea is to flow straight to the MC-12 Pilot/CSO positions IAW AFSOC's plans to divest from the U-28. All of that is pending Congress so while it's a "done deal" as far as the DoD is concerned, it's not actually done until it's law. That's my understanding at least.

Palace Chase You asking for early release from active duty...your commitment transfers to the guard/reserve, either 3x (normal) or 1x (FY14 PC program) Palace Front Transfer to the guard/reserve the day after your AD commitment ends, ensuring you do not have a break in service. More of a paperwork drill than asking The Man for anything special. No idea where they're sending all those dudes...you'd think AFSOC manned (or unmanned) ISR would be a good fit and would allow for the parole of some of those folks but what do I know? If you're in that boat god speed finding greener pastures, hope you guys are able to work some good deals.

Confirmed...this is where I'm headed Ended up being Palace Front vice Palace Chase since I got tagged with one last deployment that interferes with trying to leave early. Still looking forward to my new life in the guard!

AFI 36-3003 section 6.7.1 "Terminal leave approval. Unit commanders approve terminal leave."

Yea, thanks man but no need...the interview is in the past and I took leave to attend so no biggie. Pay it forward to the next dude. Humm...doesn't seem like that's the case from the reg (36-3003): "12.8. PTDY Not Authorized. Unit commander cannot authorize PTDY if a member requests PTDY to (this list is not all-inclusive): 12.8.1. Search for a house or search for a job when the separation program designator (SPD) code renders member ineligible for full benefits and services under AFI 36-3009, Airman and Family Readiness Centers, (for example, a member voluntarily separating for miscellaneous reasons or on completion of required active service)." I'm guessing I'd fall under the "completion of required active service" SPD code since I'm just regular-guy leaving when my commitment is up. Has anyone had luck getting that PTDY approved in that same situation (i.e. not PC or VSP?). I'd love to either just have 20 more days of freedom or to keep my DOS the same and profit from selling 20 days of leave rather than taking them as terminal if it's all kosher.

So the way I read it you only are eligible for the 20 days of PTDY if you're VSPing or retiring, not just regular-guy separating...that check? Also never realized you could get up to 7 days PTDY to interview for a Guard/Reserve job. Oh well...the more you know! All the PC hopefuls can put that in their hip pocket if they didn't know already...AFI 36-3003 table 7 rule 19.

I would argue many military officers have concluded that by in large the 4GW conflicts Lind references were political conflicts that were unwinable. Regardless of the military's performance on those battlefields, there were MANY other factors at play that had as great if not greater influence on the outcome. That's why there is not great outcry for reform...those in the military generally feel they carried out their assigned mission (and sometimes missions that really should not have been in the military's purview) as well as possible given political, time and money constraints. The military is a very good foreign policy tool for a limited number of problems yet we're always looked at like a do-all bandaid that can "fix" any situation the world presents. Maybe that's not the bold thinking Lind wants out of this generation but that's what I think anyways.

Mission systems don't sounds terribly impressive...go big or go home on a 20-in. ball and hang some real weapons like -114s or SDBs. GBU-44 is about as good as throwing a rock. Still a great idea in theory, hope we get them someday.