There is No “Deal”

By: American Decency Staff

If nothing else, l'affaire Bergdahl brings into sharp focus one of the problems that has bedeviled the entire "war on terror" concept from the beginning – that there's no agreement on what it is. Is it a war? Is it a counter-terrorism campaign? Is it law enforcement, in which the "accused" are "brought to justice" and tried in regular courtrooms with all-American dream-team legal representation?

The Afghan end of this thing is the nearest to a conventional war there is. A sovereign state was invaded and its government toppled. But the toppled party never quite went away, and they're assuredly going to be part of Afghanistan's post-US future. When Obama says this is how wars end, he's wrong. Wars end either by being won or lost or drawn. Either way, there's generally a written agreement that the war is over, and a prisoner exchange occurs only as part of that agreement. This is true of civil wars, too. In this case, there's no agreement. The Taliban are going to continue fighting until they're back in partial or total control of the Afghan government, and they will kill anyone who stands between them and that end – American, Nato troops, Afghan army… So Obama is replenishing the enemy in time of war. Seen strictly in war terms, there is no deal.

To Read More:  Click Here

---