The debate over Bowe Bergdahl is getting under my skin for the same reason that the debates over Edward Snowden, Obamacare, and most of the other talking head arguments in the media, politics, and among ourselves. The basic problem seems to be that we never learned dialectic thinking.
It is actually pretty simple. I think Snowden is the clearest example because there are so many counterfactuals exist. What if his actions created an important conversation for us to have and he ALSO should face the music in a US court of law for his actions? Can both possibly be true? YES!!! That is called counterfactual thinking. Taking two seemingly contradictory conclusions and resolving the conflict. Take the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. These brave individuals wanted to bring attention to the issues of discrimination and Jim Crow laws. The best way to do that was through civil disobedience. Breaking the law, bringing attention to the issue, and then ALSO doing the time. In fact, doing the time made their actions MORE effective, not less. They showed the world how committed they were and how important this movement was. If they were willing to go to jail, we should all be willing to do something inconvenient. And it keeps them on the side of propriety as well. In STARK contrast, we are spending so much time debating whether Snowden is good or evil that we haven’t done jack about the issue. Let’s agree that he is both and get on with what is important.
Same thing with Bergdahl. Even if he did all the things that the rumor mill is suggesting (e.g. desertion), that doesn’t mean we prosecute the crime by leaving him in Taliban captivity. If we have a policy not to leave POWs behind, then we get him back AND we prosecute him for desertion. If the court martial finds him guilty fine. Or not guilty, also fine. But it should be done here, not there. The other question is harder. Did the trade violate our policy not to negotiate with terrorists? Or is the Taliban a political group (after all, they did rule Afghanistan for many years)? Again, let’s try some dialectic thinking. Maybe they are BOTH. And let’s find a way to deal with the challenge in a way that accepts this more complex reality.
Am I off my rocker here?