There is No "Deal" [Bergdahl]

Steyn Online ^ | 09 June 2014 | Mark Steyn

[Lorianne]

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.

[Bullish]

The “deal” is for Obama to screw over America in any and every way possible. How much more evidence do people need?

[Bernard Marx]

Americans must realize we're not engaged in a conventional war. Nobody dares say it out loud but we're the victims in an Islamic Jihadist Holy War. Our sworn enemy will fight it using terrorism and duplicity.

Jihadists ignore "gentlemen's rules" for war cooked up by Western nations in places like Brussels and Geneva. This is an all-out crusade by Islam to rule the former Christian world. Unless we wake up and call things by their real names, we will be slaughtered or live as Dhimmi victims under Sharia Law.