Thursday, June 5, 2014

"The Future is Too Good to Waste on Lies": Bowe Bergdahl's Moral Odyssey

Bowe Bergdahl and his mother, Jani.

“I can’t make up my mind to put the damn thing on again. I feel so clean and free. It’s like voluntarily taking up filth and slavery again….I think I’ll just walk off naked across the fields.”

John Andrews, a U.S. soldier in World War I who went AWOL, discusses his uniform in Three Soldiers by John Dos Passos

Trying to find their footing amid a gale-force outpouring of largely manufactured outrage, officials in Hailey, Idaho canceled their long-planned homecoming for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. They were understandably intimidated by the prospect of dealing with thousands of protesters who planned to besiege the tiny central Idaho town to demand the blood of a young man they now regard to be a deserter, and a father they consider a terrorist sympathizer.

To understand the kind of welcome the War Party has been preparing for Bowe and his family, it’s useful to consider the treatment given to the family of World War I-era conscientious objector John Witmer.

A Mennonite from Colombiana, Ohio who was denied a deferment by the local draft board, Witmer died from the Spanish Flu while stationed at Camp Sherman, Ohio. Witmer's lifeless body was returned to his hometown on October 10, 1918, where the family – his father Dan, his siblings, and his fiancee, Nola – was greeted by a silent crowd heavy with sullen disapproval for the “slacker” and his family.

Like thousands of others who shared his faith, John had been kidnapped at gunpoint from his family farm through the evil practice of conscription. The local draft board had turned down John's appeal for Conscientious Objector status, dishonestly assuring him that once he had taken the oath of enlistment he would be recognized as a CO and be given a non-combat assignment.

As with everything else of consequence that emerges from the lips, pen, or keyboard of a government functionary, those assurances were lies.

During wartime, explained Bernard Baruch, the head of the Wilson Regime’s War Industry Board, all “men, money and things” within the government’s claimed jurisdiction “suddenly become a compact instrument of destruction…. [T]he entire population must suddenly cease to be a congeries of individuals, each following a self-appointed course, and become a vast unitary mechanism." John Witmer, like many thousands of others, was designated a “slacker” because he persisted in the belief that he was not the property of the State. His refusal to  undergo military training forbidden by his religious convictions provoked violent reactions from his fellow conscripts, and led to a punitive re-assignment to a CO camp – a detention facility that was also used as a holding pen for German prisoners of war.

The weather turned colder, and influenza – one of the government's chief wartime imports from Europe – propagated itself throughout Camp Sherman.  John pleaded for adequate bedding and dry clothes, to no avail. The isolated, terrified young man contracted the Spanish Flu, from which he soon died.

John's body was returned in a flag-shrouded coffin. While most Americans would regard this as an honor, the Witmer family's convictions didn't allow them to make acts of allegiance to anyone or anything but God. There is a sense in which wrapping John's body in the US flag was one final proprietary gesture by the government that had stolen the young man from the family who loved him, the religious fellowship that had raised him, and the young woman who wanted to be his wife.

The crowd that had congealed at the train station to witness the arrival of John Witmer's body was acutely interested in the reaction of his Mennonite family. Most of the spectators knew that the Mennonites didn't support the war; their principled pacifism had provoked both curiosity and suspicion.

For a brief period, the Witmers enjoyed what could be called probationary sympathy from the crowd. But they quickly learned that few things are likelier to provoke sanctimonious violence from war-maddened Americans than a conspicuous lack of enthusiasm for killing foreigners whom the State has designated the “enemy.”

Slumping beneath a burden no parent should ever bear, Dan Witmer approached the coffin containing his son's body and carefully removed the flag. In doing so, he committed an act regarded as a sacrilege by adherents of the omnivorous idol called the State: Either out of innocent ignorance of, or commendable indifference to, the ritual called “flag etiquette,” Dan folded the banner as he would a blanket.

The crowd, deep in the throes of the psychosis called “war patriotism,” erupted in pious outrage.

“The mood of the onlookers turned from one of sympathy to hostility,” recounts Lily A. Bear in her book Report for Duty.

“Mennonites!” hissed one disgusted onlooker.

“Got what he deserved!” declared another of Dan's dead son.

“Traitor!” bellowed yet another outraged pseudo-patriot.

Someone hurled a stone that hit John's younger brother in the shoulder. A second stone, missing its target, landed at the feet of the mourning father. John's young sister Mary, puzzled and hurt by this display of murderous hatred, began to cry. After making arrangements for his son's funeral, Dan took his family home. This crowd, deprived of the hate objects that had given it cohesion, quickly dissipated.

This repellent spectacle, recall, occurred in a tiny Ohio town nearly one hundred years ago. In this age of saturation media and online social networking, the “homecoming” given the Bergdahl family would likely have been worse by several orders of magnitude.

“I will push for Bowe Bergdahl’s execution during the next Republican administration,” fumed South Carolina Republican agitator Todd Kincannon. “And his dad too. Those who commit treason need to die.” Kincannon’s sentiments are not an aberration.

Bowe’s detractors claim that his desertion cost the lives of U.S. soldiers sent to rescue him – a claim that plays well on talk radio but cannot be substantiated by casualty records. Given the fact that Bowe had expressed his growing misgivings to his superiors, the effort to locate him might have been less a rescue mission that an attempt to locate and re-assimilate a wayward drone who had exhibited troubling symptoms of resurgent individualism.

Like John Witmer, Bowe Bergdahl was raised in a deeply religious home. Unlike Witmer, Bergdahl was not a conscript. Like countless other young men, Bowe was lured into enlisting by a recruiter who cynically appealed to his idealistic and patriotic impulses, and offered lying assurances about the missions he would be required to carry out. Bowe was a committed and disciplined soldier who devoted what private time he had to refining his skills, conditioning his body, and feeding his mind, rather than indulging in recreational vice.
Once he arrived in Afghanistan, Bowe was immediately disillusioned by the corruption and cluelessness displayed by his superiors, the laxity and unprofessionalism of his fellow soldiers, and the criminal indifference to innocent lives that characterized the mission.
“The few good [sergeants] are getting out as soon as they can, and they are telling us privates to do the same,” Bowe informed his father in an e-mail. He decided to act on that advice immediately, explaining to his parents that “The future is too good to waste on lies.”

Bowe’s parents are Christians of the Calvinist persuasion who home-schooled him, instructed him in Christian ethics, and respected his independence of mind and sense of personal responsibility.

“Bowe was a young man with all the dangers of home-schooling – a brilliant and inquisitive mind, a crisp thinker, and someone who had never really been exposed to evil in the world,” recalls Phil Proctor, who was pastor of the Presbyterian Church attended by the Bergdahl family. “He [wanted] to determine whether the Christian faith was his own, or his parents’ and was doing a lot of exploring of ideas – never drugs or alcohol, but trying to be an outdoors/Renaissance type figure.”

When Bowe announced his enlistment in the US Army, Bob didn’t approve but also didn’t discourage him. When Bowe expressed his terminal disgust with the mission in Afghanistan, Bob offered the admonition: “Obey your conscience.”

By offering that advice, rather than rebuking his son or turning him in to his superiors as a potential “shirker,” Bob Bergdahl committed treason, according to his detractors, who insist that loyalty to the Warfare State trumps all other moral commitments.

Bowe’s parents never relented in their efforts to bring their son home. Now their relief over their son’s liberation, and their expressions of unconditional love toward him, are being depicted as evidence of disloyalty to the Regime and even hatred forAmerica.

“Bob felt (with some justification) that the US government was not going to engage with diplomatic efforts and so decided to try to free his son himself,” recounts Pastor Proctor. “He learned Pashtun and developed a lot of contacts in the Middle East. The Qatar connection is one that either originated with Bob or, at the very least, became very personally connected to Bob. Bob has, for quite some time, been saying that the closure of Guantanamo is integrally connected to the release of his son.”

In addition to placing his duty to his son above loyalty to the State, Bob Bergdahl’s offenses include learning the language of his captors and expressing the heretical view that God disapproves of death of Afghan children. Even Bob’s beard is presented as evidence of his supposed affinity for Islamic jihad, a charge that – if applied even-handedly – could justify a drone strike targeting the cast of Duck Dynasty.

Rather than being a jihadist sleeper cell, as they are being portrayed by War Party dead-enders, the Bergdahls are Christian individualists. Their moral universe is defined by the Two Great Commandments (that we love our Creator and love our neighbors as ourselves ) and biblical teachings regarding the reciprocal moral duties of parents and children. They do not place allegiance to the State above loyalty to their family – which to a statist is an unforgivable heresy.

Speaking on FoxNews, Dr. Keith Ablow – displaying the ideologically inspired certitude of a Brezhev-era Soviet psychiatrist – discerned “narcissistic” tendencies in the entire Bergdahl family. Bowe’s desire for adventure and self-directed nature indicate that “he can’t really serve the nation … because he’s serving himself.” Bowe’s individualism was a form of “addiction,” insisted Commissar Ablow, eliciting coos of thoughtful assent from the Fox News personalities interviewing him, one of whom was prompted to underscore the importance of “obey[ing] your commander, rather than your conscience,” which is a decidedly a pre-Nuremberg order of moral priorities .

Bowe’s incorrigible commitment to his conscience is to be expected, Commissar Ablow continued, given that Bowe was raised in a family displaying a tendency “to distance one’s self from institutions, to diminish the rule of law and to elevate the individual above all else.” The problem with the Bergdahls, Ablow suggested, was that they “don’t feel part of our country.” The exchange of five Gitmo detainees for “somebody who didn’t feel very American” resulted in “a tremendously psychologically dispiriting moment for our people,” summarized the putative doctor, who strikes me as the kind of person who would consider the public execution of the entire Bergdahl family to be a moment of communal healing.

For people in the grip of war patriotism, the proper role for Bob and Jani Bergdahl was described in Livy’s account of the Horatti, or sons of Horace. During one of the countless conflicts in Rome's early expansion, Horace's triplet sons volunteered to engage three brothers from a rival tribe on the battlefield. The victors would win, on behalf of their city-state, possession of a strategically crucial – and now long-forgotten -- village.

Rome’s opponents were killed in a battle that also claimed two of Horace’s sons. In the subsequent victory celebration Horace lost one of his daughters as well: She was killed by the surviving brother as punishment for her romantic dalliance with an enemy of Rome. Horace bore the losses stoically, as befitting a father who sought above all things the greater glory of the government that claimed him.

Under that model of “patriotism” – which inspired the totalitarian French Jacobins, as well as their ideological offspring in Italy and Germany – Bob Bergdahl’s duty was to chastise his errant son, and exhort him to be true and faithful in carrying out the State’s murderous errand. If Bowe were to be killed by Afghans defending their country, his parents were expected to regard their son as an exalted hero, and their irreplaceable loss as a holy privilege.

Bowe was hardly the first American soldier whose understandable disillusionment led him to quit while deployed overseas.
“I cannot support a mission that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars,” wrote
Colonel Ted Westhusing, a West Point Graduate, Special Forces veteran, and devout Catholic husband and father, in a despairing e-mail to his family. “I am sullied. I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored. Death before being dishonored any more.”

A few hours later Col. Westhusing shot himself in the head, ending his life less than a month before his tour of duty was scheduled to end. In the fashion of “Doctor” Ablow, an Army psychologist who reviewed Westhusing's e-mails following his suicide determined that the Colonel was “unusually rigid in his thinking” and unreasonably committed to his moral code.

 Army Specialist Alyssa Peterson was also devoutly religious, a former Mormon missionary from Flagstaff, Arizona. Like Bowe and Bob Bergdahl, Peterson had what one friend described as an “amazing” ability to learn languages, an aptitude that helped her learn Arabic at the Army's Defense Language Institute. Spec. Peterson volunteered for duty in Iraq, where she was sent to help interrogate prisoners and translate captured documents at an air base in Tal-Afar.

And, like Ted Westhusing, Alyssa Peterson was driven to suicidal depression as a result of the role the regime forced her to play in Iraq.

Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners,” summarized Reporter Kevin Elston, who was using the official euphemism for “torture.” “She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokesmen for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed.”

Immediately after lodging her objections, Alyssa was reassigned and sent to suicide prevention training; her suicide note took ironic notice of the fact that the “prevention” training actually instructed her in the best way to kill herself.

“What right had a man to exist who was too cowardly to stand up for what he thought and felt … for everything that made him an individual apart from his fellows, and not a slave to stand cap in hand waiting for someone of stronger will to act?” asked John Andrews, a WWI-era deserter, in John Dos Passos’ novel Three Soldiers. It’s quite likely that Ted Westhusing and Alyssa Peterson asked that question of themselves. Bowe Bergdahl’s emails to his father make it clear that he was pondering that question at the time of his desertion.

Implicated in grotesque crimes against decency, Col. Westhusing and Spec. Peterson “deserted” through suicide. They were buried with honors, and their bereaved families received sympathy, rather than scorn. Rather than ending his life, or allowing it to be wasted in the service of lies, Bowe Bergdahl sought to reclaim it on his own terms – and this is why War Party fundamentalists are seeking to not only to imprison him, but to destroy his entire family.

Dum spiro, pugno!


Libertas said...

Very moving.

I have been traveling for the past month. This week I finally have been able to watch the news. When this came up I was appalled by his condemnation, the call for his execution, the cries of treason and traitor. Reason and compassion no longer matter in this country.

I was worried and concerned before. Now I'm afraid for myself and others with different opinions.

Anonymous said...

Will, do I have your permission to "guest post" this essay, in its entirety or in part, at my Sycamore Three blog? I will include links to your site.

Thanks, and awaiting your reply.

Robert Heid

William N. Grigg said...

Robert, thank you for your interest, and the answer is yes.

Once again, thank you.

Kent McManigal said...

Those rendered insane by the disease of statism (who will doubtlessly be posting vile comments on this post for years to come) are crying "deserter!"- I am thinking of him as a runaway slave, instead; due the same respect. Yes, he was tricked into being enslaved, but that just counts against the slavers, not him.

Anonymous said...

Post is up. First part is included, with links to PL for the rest. Thanks again, Will. I consider this post to be of very great importance, spiritually. --RH

Jagg said...

I don't buy your argument. It's a good for someone forced into war slavery, but a bad one for a man who walked away with his responsibilities that he freely entered into. He could have as easily gone to his commander and refused any further duty until they shipped him stateside for court marshal. Instead he ran away from his responsibilities. That's not a man worthy of sympathy.

You're quite right about all the bullshit being spewed about his family in the media though.

Bill in IL said...

I feel no sympathy for this loser nor, for the first time, do I buy your argument Will. He joined the Imperial Legions of his own free will, too stupid to realize, until it was too late, he made the biggest mistake of his life. His father is also a moron for not trying to dissuade him from joining in the first place.

Then we have the whole thing of Oblah blah breaking yet more laws and violating the Constitution yet again over this fiasco. All, I suspect, to divert attention from the latest scandal of this imposter's reign, the VA death machine.

The entire episode is appalling and disgusting from every angle.

Diaz Cruz said...

This is why I will never join the military back in my younger years i had the dumb as shit way of thinking the military were honorable. But not anymore watching the many things they committed and how they bribe people into the service.

Most today only join due to benefits take these away and they will stop joining.

The military now is no better than hired mercenaries.

Anonymous said...

This is a great article. It is unfortunate that Bergdahl did not file for conscientious objector status. Maybe he was not against all war, just aggressive war.

In any case, I especially liked your comment:

'If Bowe were to be killed by Afghans defending their country, his parents were expected to regard their son as an exalted hero, and their irreplaceable loss as a holy privilege.'

If it is illegal and potentially immoral for Afghanis to defend their lives, their lands, their religion and their families, this would rule out the case of National Defense as a legitimate reason for fighting in war. This would make Bergdahl a possible "conscientious objector" even by USG definition.

Thanks for such great articles! My favorites are always the ones that demonstrate police corruption to be systemic, rather than individual. I think this best demonstrated when you post articles about the repercussions good cops face from their departments when actually stepping in to defend the innocent from their colleagues in blue.

I am a theological pacifist earnestly seeking to be congruent in action and belief. I served in the United States Navy and applied for conscientious objector. As a Christian, the incentives of public justice discourage personal responsibility and accountability through the process of repentance. I believe this to be the case when repentance is discouraged, even in law enforcement who should be held to higher standards, exactly because private initiative to reconcile victims is used as evidence against offenders, rather than evidence to exonerate offenders. It makes sense in my mind, as a result of this fact, that police and criminals alike are always seeking out the technicalities in the law and for mitigating circumstances to justify their mistakes and crimes. Were the State to recognize private initiative to reconcile victims (ie. repentance), their might be more personal responsibility and accountability in communities and the officials protecting and serving them. I guess we just need to return to a private system of justice where repentance was encourage than the present public system that discourages it.

Keep up the good work Mr. Griggs!

Unknown said...

Permission to reblog?

William N. Grigg said...

Travis - yes, please re-blog this article, if you see fit to do so. Thank you.

Gil said...

As Jagg said the military is the worst place to join if you have a habit of rethinking what you got yourself into. Joining the military means you become a soldier and your work is soldering.

The military isn't there to "make a man out of you" nor it is there to "give you a holiday at taxpayers' expense" rather you're there to get ordered around and go wherever the brass sends you.

Unknown said...

Thank You William. Post is up at

Great writing.

Anonymous said...

The story of Bowe Bergdahl, as clearly presented by you, (and others who referenced it at LRC, such as Paul Craig Robert, Eric Margolis, and others) has provoked some very overdue discussion about our truly deep beliefs.

Sure happened in my family last night!

Lots of folks deeply invested in the War Party Mentality as being The Revealed Will Of God.

The arguments about violating a military oath at induction, which are brought forth to damn Bergdahl as a deserter (whether true or not), reminds me of our Lord Jesus' instructions to avoid oaths, and let your simple yes be yes. Whatever is more than this, He said is "of the Evil One."

The Lord Jesus does not require oaths nor appeal to them. Perhaps He does not even recognize them as binding. The Evil One does. Draw your own conclusions.

Robert Heid

Anonymous said...

Donna from North Dakota ~

Beyond immediate party politics, WHAT possible strategy makes this hapless young man worth the so-called 'Taliban FIVE'?

WHY bring him back only to demonize him with his family?

There has to be a lot more to this dealio.

White Buffalo said...

Bill in IL said...

I feel no sympathy for this loser nor, for the first time, do I buy your argument Will. He joined the Imperial Legions of his own free will, too stupid to realize, until it was too late, he made the biggest mistake of his life. His father is also a moron for not trying to dissuade him from joining in the first place."

Accepting that you are right in that he made the biggest mistake of his life, at what point does one get to change his course to align it with his conscience? Or must one continue to go against one's conscience because it is his "duty"? Does duty trump conscience or vice versa?

Kent McManigal said...

White Buffalo is right- but there's more. When you enter a contract with someone (and I'll pretend for a moment that "government" is someone you can enter a contract with), and you later find out that other person has lied to you, and is doing evil, you are under no obligation to hold up your end of the bargain, because the deal has already been broken by the other guy. Walk away with a clear conscience- but with the awareness that you may still be hunted down and killed. Thugs don't like to let people walk away- it's one way to know you are dealing with a thug, instead of a good guy.

David A. Laibow said...

I'm a former member of the US Army Reserve's 79th Infantry Division, and the NJ Army National Guard's 50th Armored Division. I've never faced enemy fire, but I was honorably discharged as a Sergeant E-5. If you're in combat and don't like it, there are alternatives that don't involve desertion.
First, talk to a chaplain, and ask for reassignment to another post.
Second, notify your superiors in writing of your misgivings, and ask to be reassigned or discharged for the convenience of the government;
Third, if you're an officer, resign your commission.
Fourth, if you're enlisted, don't reenlist when your current enlistment expires.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) specifies that any member of the military can refuse to obey orders he or she considers immoral or illegal. I received such orders, and I refused to obey them, putting my objections in writing. I convinced my superiors the orders had been wrongly issued, and did not have to face a court-martial.
There is a way to bail, short of desertion, but you have to follow the rules.
I'm Dave Laibow, and you can contact me any time at "caballafamily[at]".

Anonymous said...

Being in the military screws with your mind. He messed up, bad. He did his time. His life has been forever altered. I don't see any reason to further beat up on the guy.
Bad situation from beginning to end.

Cederq said...

Mr Grigg,
I joined the army in 1976 and wanting to be a peace officer growing up I joined as a MP. I went trough all the training and assigned to Presido, San Francisco. What an education, the corrupt, idiot fellow MPs and officers, then having to work along side SF police on Armed Forces patrol was too much, I wrote a letter to my CO and asked to be separated early after 2 years of a 4 year enlistment. I was reassigned to post maintenance and 6 months later was discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions, big deal... even at 18 years of age I saw the utter hypocrisy that military service was and I wasn't even in a combat situation and I couldn't trust or obey those idiots, so, I have empathy for Bergdahl. Maybe he could have done it differently, who knows? I do know there is/was stigma thinking for oneself.
Keep up your writing, first class all the way.
Kevin, a fellow spudder...

Jack said...

Thank you for this wonderful piece, Mr. Grigg.

You have managed to truly shed light on this issue and have brought many aspects of the ordeal that others have conveniently omitted.

I am especially grateful that you have remained true to your libertarian and anarchist vantages: you have chosen to let your philosophy dictate your conclusions, rather than shoehorning sentiments that don't square with the philosophy.

Too many other "liberty" minded writers are coming up short on this case: whether it be out of fear of chastisement from the media, or a depraved effort to garner more viewership, they have sold out and betrayed the message of Liberty and of the Individual.

Thank you again for staying objective and preserving your fidelity to the Cause of Liberty.

With many regards,

Jack O'Brien

Anonymous said...

Mr. Grigg, I'm a long-term reader of yours and appreciate your tight and trenchant style. This article brings a new dimension to the discussion. What are your comments regarding Mr. Bergdahl's possibly pro-Muslim statements at the white house? Also, it seems that the number of deaths and details involved in attempting to rescue Bowe from the Taliban is very important. Other perspectives to consider include: Oathkeepers perspective... were there other ways Bowe could have gotten discharged from the military while there?... the Gitmo angle (many of us Ron Paul and Oathkeeper types have thought Gitmo should have been closed long ago, yet when 5 Gitmo prisoners are released, we become up in arms. This whole story becomes increasingly complex and makes us all search our hearts and minds for answers. Also, what is the parity or sensibleness of trading 5 Taliban leaders for one American and what value does this put on the lives of other American soldiers now? Also, why was the swap done in the midst of the VA scandal which was getting very hot under Obama's backside? Wag the dog looks likely... Also, what about the American prisoner in Mexico that Obama is ignoring? Also, how is Obama regime using this situation to further its own agenda? I am very interested in the story from a worldview perspective (the family's Calvinist perspective and strong homeschooling is quite interesting). I appreciate you bringing to the fore this aspect of the story. What about Bowe's personal views on Obama? I'm inclined to think since he has Calvinistic views, that Obama is probably not highly thought of by Mr. Bergdahl. And how about the angle of individualism is good, but wise individualism is even better? Just a few thoughts perhaps as fodder or elements for your future articles. Thanks for making us think more deeply and thoughtfully, Mr. Grigg!

Paul Bonneau said...

This is a tough issue.

First, the notion of a contract doesn't wash as far as I'm concerned, since the consent was not informed consent. Recruiters lie routinely to get naive and well-indoctrinated kids into the military. However, Bergdahl was homeschooled and has less excuse in that regard. I think his Dad sold him short also, by not questioning his motives.

He perhaps should have found a better way out, but that is assuming he knew how, and also assuming he wouldn't be "fragged" or otherwise dealt with before he could accomplish that. Let's not forget what goes on all the time over there: murder. One more murder would be swept under the rug.

I was faced with something similar during the Viet Nam war. I came to hate the war and everything it stood for. I served out my enlistment without getting sent there but I was seriously considering flying to Canada instead, if I was told to go, because I had no moral right to war on those people.

As to the folks let out of Gitmo, let's not forget (assuming they were terrorists AKA patriots at all, rather than just innocent bystanders), their actions are directly tied to the US government invasion and occupation of their countries, and the constant meddling in that region. Gitmo shouldn't even exist as a prison.

Unknown said...


Thank you for reminding us what moral consistency looks like.

Anonymous said...

I will be sending another donation
very soon. Thank you again for all your efforts in giving a voice
to the voiceless.

Re-Posted here>