When the information was first released to the public, everyone went "yayy!!" because he was (as far as we know) the last known American captive of the Taliban. But then his fellow platoon members started coming out about how much they didn't like him. Some are now arguing that Bergdahl is a deserter who is responsible for the deaths of the men who searched for him.
Perhaps his most heinous crime, however, is that he didn't go out with the guys.
According to The New York Times, "Platoon members said Sergeant Bergdahl, of Hailey, Idaho, was known as bookish and filled with romantic notions that some found odd."
"He wouldn’t drink beer or eat barbecue and hang out with the other 20-year-olds," said one of his comrades.
And everyone knows, of course, that every non-conformist is a traitor. God forbid that an off-duty soldier chooses to read rather than drink beer.
This doesn't paint a pretty picture of his platoon members. They have zero tolerence for bookish guys, and are quick to use his personality as evidence of his lack of patriotism.
Do you think that not drinking beers with the guys is a sign of a traitor?
To be honest, I do not know too much about this issue. However, I do not understand why anyone would be unhappy about Bergdahl's release over his "bookishness." Personally, I find it very interesting how much control terrorist organizations have over the United States and other nations, especially when it comes to lives of U.S. citizens. In many negotiations like Bergdahl's it is not uncommon for many terrorists to be released from U.S. custody for only one U.S. citizen. Anyway, I still find this to be very happy news for Bergdahl and his family.
ReplyDeleteNice number of posts this term, Leah,and a good range of topics. This post has potential, and I like the way you begin to exercise your voice near the end of the post. Strange, though, that you avoid the political here: you don't quote anyone alleging his "treachery", nor do you consider the degree to which Bergdahl is a political football. Always important to think critically of our sources. Why did this story run? Overall, though, nice job.
ReplyDelete