Share this on:
 E-mail
35
VIEWS
17
COMMENTS
 
SHARES
About this iReport
  • Not vetted for CNN

  • Click to view jtchicago2's profile
    Posted June 3, 2014 by
    jtchicago2
    Assignment
    Assignment
    This iReport is part of an assignment:
    Sound off

    More from jtchicago2

    Taliban Prisoner Exchange – A Working Theory of What Happened

     

    So, none of this makes any sense to us average people. In cases like this one has to put politics aside and look objectively at the evidence. So, what do we know?

     

    1. We know that the U.S. released 5 top Taliban enemy combatants.

     

    2. We know that we received a U.S. soldier purportedly held in captivity by the Taliban in return for the release of the Taliban 5.

     

    3. We know now that the U.S. concluded in 2010 that Bergdahl ‘walked away’ from his post, i.e., deserted his unit. Our administration knew that Bergdahl was a deserter.
    http://news.yahoo.com/us-concluded-2010-bergdahl-walked-away-185047684--politics.html

     

    4. We know that the soldier on watch just after his desertion and responsible for the morning headcount reported him missing, provided the world with a complete recount of events on Twitter that was damning to Bergdahl.

     

    5. We know that Obama has stated that his policy for Afghanistan is withdrawal next year.

     

    6. We know that Qatar is in the middle of the negotiations, and we also know that the Taliban actually has a consulate office, so to speak, in Qatar.

     

    Given that none of this makes any sense, it called for some careful thinking to find realistic conclusions.

     

    If we discount the notion that Obama is a Muslim terrorist sympathizer, and we consider the obvious fact that this is a bad trade, what are we left with?

     

    We are left with the obvious point that there is more to this deal than meets the eye.

     

    I postulate that the U.S. has been working with the Taliban to strike a truce. With our intention of withdrawal known, we want to ‘bargain’ for the best possible circumstance and highest probability of stability upon our departure. History has shown that under the flag of withdrawal, the withdrawing force is attacked more aggressively during that time. And we can surmise that upon our withdrawal a power vacuum will exist, whether real or perceived that will encourage conflict between Afghani factions, specifically the Taliban will attack to gain a better footing in the country.

     

    My theory is this: We have been working on a deal with the Taliban to withdraw peacefully and provide them incentive to ‘keep the peace’. Part of that deal to show good faith was the return of the 5 top Taliban leaders imprisoned at GITMO. But, there would be no way to sell this to the American people. So, the administration asked the Taliban to throw in the deserter so we could sell this as a prisoner exchange.

     

    Yep, I think that about sums it up. I also think that it’s bad policy to lie to the American people, and it’s bad policy to deal from weakness

    What do you think of this story?

    Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
    Be and editor! Choose an option below:
      Awesome! Put this on TV! Almost! Needs work. This submission violates iReport's community guidelines.

    Comments

    Log in to comment

    iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

    Add your Story Add your Story