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?