Patriotism

     With the recent announcement by Pentagon that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has been declared a deserter, there have been quite a few comments posted on facebook pages.  I have earlier written in a blog that in my opinion he was a deserter and should be treated as such.  However, recent comments on facebook tell me that not everyone feels the same way.  There are those who insist that he should be given benefit of doubt and every avenue should be explored before a decision is made as to his guilt or whether he is indeed a deserter.  Others seem to feel the same as I do, that he is a deserter since he walked off his post in a combat zone.
     According to the military definition, one does not have to be in a combat zone to be classified as a deserter for leaving their post.  Anyone leaving their post of assignment without permission from a higher authority is considered absent without leave or AWOL.  The AWOL status remains until 30 days have expired, at which point the missing serviceman becomes a deserter.  In this way, there were many servicemen who became deserters when they failed to return to their units after authorized leave of absence, if their absence was more than 30 days. 
     There were many deserters during Vietnam who fled to Canada and Sweden, as well as those who just stayed hidden within the U.S.  Of course there were also those rare cases where someone left their post in combat and ended up with the NVA.  There have been deserters even during peacetime, when there were no wars being fought. 
     To me, the definition is quite simple, less than 30 days absence without permission is AWOL, over 30 days is desertion.  That is how I understood it while I was in the service, and that is how I still understand it.  Perhaps it is simplistic and I need to think in more detailed and complicated terms such as: What caused the person to leave his post? What were extenuating circumstances that caused him to leave post?  Was there a physical or medical reason?  There could be a multitude of questions.  But I don't see it that way because the military does not either.  It isn't that the military is necessarily right, but it is their rule, their regulation, and it cannot become embroiled in complicated reasons and details.  Like everything else in the military, it should be kept simple, clear cut.  So, to be a deserter you don't have to have left your post without permission in a combat zone.  Even in peace time, if you leave your post without permission for more than 30 days, you are classified a deserter.
     We don't shoot deserters anymore, in fact, many of the deserters of Vietnam era never even spent a day in prison!  They were given amnesty!  There were over 21,000 deserters during World War Two and only one was executed. The last American deserter to face a firing squad was during World War Two, an Army Private Eddie Slovik, and it was questionable whether he really deserted or it was just stupidity! Private Slovik did not leave his post in a combat zone, he simply failed to report to his unit and was gone for more than 30 days without permission!
     How times change.  Poor Slovik was killed by a firing squad for a "questionable" desertion.  Yet a bunch of soldiers who deserted during Vietnam some 25 years later were all forgiven.  At least during World War Two deserters had to serve some prison time!  By the way, Vietnam era deserters for the most part did not leave their post in combat, they simply did not return to their units after furlough!  Today, in an era of political correctness, a soldier walks off his post in a combat zone, leaves a note to his CO explaining how he hated the army and was leaving (he also sent a detailed email to his parents, outlining his reasons for desertion) for parts unknown and is captured by Taliban.  He spends five years with Taliban, initially making anti-US videos (yes, I know, he claims he made the videos under duress, but Tokyo Rose also made radio broadcasts under duress and she spent 15 years in prison and she was not even in the army!), and some folks are not comfortable with the fact that he has been declared a deserter?  I can't quite understand that.
     The definition or understanding of the meaning of patriotism seems to have changed dramatically, or so it seems.  Perhaps it started with all of those anti-war protests during Vietnam.  But for whatever reason, there seems to be two schools of thought on the subject today, and I don't mean the Tea Party's version and the Democrats version.  I am simply referring to the fact that patriotism is no longer viewed the same way by some as it used to be in the past.
     I remember during Vietnam, I knew a particular Lieutenant who was exceptionally "gung-ho" and was itching to go to Vietnam and "earn his stripes" so-to-speak.  He spent a tour in Vietnam and saw some heavy action.  He was reassigned to Okinawa, and when he was ordered back to go to Vietnam, he refused!  He told the press that he was against the war in Vietnam, that he saw it as a racist war and that U.S. had no business being in that country.  He said he was not going to risk his life for something that he did not believe!  He was not a member of the minority and he was also a West Point graduate, so his remarks and action were not only surprising but embarrassing to his unit, the Army Special Forces!  No member of the Special Forces had ever refused to go back into combat!  There were many officers and enlisted men in the Special Forces who did not particularly agree with our policies or execution of the war.  But, they all served honorably, to the best of their ability. The Lieutenant was court martialed but never imprisoned, just drummed out of the army.  That was it, he disappeared, only to resurface in California briefly and write some anti war articles for a leftist publication.
     In contrast, my very good friend "Doc" Barnes was badly wounded in Vietnam and almost released from the army on medical grounds.  The army insisted that his wounds would not allow him to serve actively.  Doc campaigned vigorously to be reinstated and finally got his wish and was put back on active duty and immediately volunteered to return to Vietnam.  I had many talks with Doc, he was a highly intelligent, well read individual.  He had studied to become a priest but chose to leave the seminary and enlist in the army!  He was offered a commission but turned it down and chose to remain an NCO.  He was one of the best read persons I had ever met.  Doc did not agree with our policies and the war in Vietnam.  But, as he told me on a number of occasions, he was a soldier and did what he was ordered to do.  Besides, he said that he was an American soldier, and if America was at war, then he was going to support its effort.  As long as his orders did not ask him to do anything illegal, he was  going to do it to the best of his ability.  Doc was a patriot, the Lieutenant was not and neither is Bergdahl, in my opinion. 
     Very simply put, Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter.  The fact that he gained his freedom in exchange for five Taliban prisoners is a travesty!  He won't face a firing squad like poor Eddie Slovik, and chances are he won't even face any prison time.  There is no doubt that his lawyer will convince everyone that he had suffered enough at the hands of the Taliban.  But at the very least, he should be stripped of his rank to private (he should have never been promoted in the first place!) and declared a deserter, once and for all!