President Trump shot off his mouth about the Bergdahl desertion sentence — again blatantly subverting his own chain of command

05 November 2017

Today's theme

President Donald Trump, who enthusiastically avoided military service himself, feels entitled to teach others about courage, justice and military process.

Background — the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl desertion case

From the New York Times:

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who walked off his Army base in Afghanistan in 2009 and was held captive by the Taliban for five years, received no prison time for desertion or endangering troops, but was ordered by a military judge on Friday to be dishonorably discharged from the Army.

The military judge, Col. Jeffery R. Nance of the Army, also reduced Sergeant Bergdahl’s rank to private and required him to forfeit $1,000 a month of his pay for 10 months.

[Upon hearing this, our Commander in Chief tweeted that:]

The decision on Sergeant Bergdahl is a complete and total disgrace to our Country and to our Military.

The President's process-undermining sentencing statement came after his previous, arguably trial-influencing blurt that Bergdahl was a "dirty rotten traitor."

Why the President's unprofessional behavior matters

Given that:

the Coast Guard tossed Bergdahl from boot camp (for unspecified reasons) before the Army (apparently knowing this) picked him up

and

the post-desertion Bergdahl was tortured for five years by the Taliban —

— it is difficult to reasonably argue with the judicial fairness of the parameters of Colonel Nance's sentence.

Punishment and deterrence are not consequential issues in this case because no one in their right (or wrong) mind would voluntarily subject themselves to five years of Taliban mistreatment:

[T]he soldier, who is now 31, was captured by the Taliban within hours and spent five years as a prisoner, his treatment worsening after every attempt to escape. He was beaten with copper cables and held in isolation in a metal cage less than seven feet square. He suffered dysentery for most of his captivity, and cleaned feces off his hands with his own urine so that he could eat enough bread to survive.

Ergo, two of the major goals of judicial sentencing are undermined by the facts of Bergdahl's case:

Further confinement would aim only at retribution for Bergdahl's preexisting, known unfitness for military service. We do our troops no survival favors by sprinkling the obviously maladapted among them.

And, as one of my currently serving Army friends (who despises, but does not personally know Bergdahl) has observed, the grievous wounding of approximately three troops, who reportedly had looked for the deserter, pretty much goes with Army combat territory.

In such a situation, drawing rationally unassailable conclusions about proximate causation is difficult and of dubious military and moral value.

It was the Taliban who attacked the three seekers, not Bergdahl — who evidently was too unmilitary in his thinking even to make the connection between his leaving the unit and an arguable consequence of that desertion.

In sum, one can just as easily attribute the Bergdahl situation to:

(a) too many idiotically started American wars — thus draining the volunteer military's personnel resources

(b) foolishly unselective Army recruit selection

and

as to

(d) Bergdahl's allegedly traitorous maliciousness.

Consequently

Even a disagreeing Commander in Chief should have stayed silent regarding Colonel Nance's sentencing decision, thereby allowing the Army's judicial review process to work itself through without further interference:

With the sentence still facing review by General Abrams and military appellate judges, [President] Trump’s post-verdict comments on Twitter seemed to bolster efforts by the defense to have the sentence thrown out on appeal, some military law experts said, on the grounds that the president had unlawfully influenced the case.

What particularly offends

President Trump's enthusiastic willingness to scathingly criticize a highly pressured subordinate, Colonel Nance, for easily defensible actions is institutionally unacceptable.

No even mildly worthy commander acts that way.

The moral? — Former U.S. president and World War II veteran George H. W. Bush's conclusion that President Trump is a "blowhard" seems apt

Our (historically draft-avoiding) current Commander in Chief appears to perceive no procedural or honor barrier to undermining a highly structured chain of subordinate authority that is designated to encourage both traits.

Perhaps we can simply lay President Trump's ill-considered pronouncements at Stupidity's feet.

However perceived, the President's narcissistically active, disruptive posturing does American institutions no good. We are not benefitted by an unprincipled Commander in Chief's tempestuous, childishly emotional babblings.

Orange Pufferoo, indeed.

PeteFree.com

President Trump shot off his mouth about the Bergdahl desertion sentence — again blatantly subverting his own chain of command