I almost let this one go without comment. I've stated my position on Sgt. Bergdahl clearly in a couple of previous posts. But the two arguments in defense of Sgt. Bergdahl are so absurd I just cannot let it pass.

"Lost in all the ghoulish triumphalism were some pertinent facts. Those who felt the administration did the right thing, for example, never argued that Bergdahl was innocent of any wrongdoing; it was the principle of "leave no man behind" that was at stake."

Seriously? Consider, over 83,000 Americans are unaccounted for from the previous wars.
        73,547 unaccounted for from WW II
        7,883 unaccounted for from Korea
        1,642 unaccounted for from Vietnam
That bucket don't hold water.

At the combat unit level every attempt is made to honor the "no man left behind" code. Even there, however, it is a judgement call. Do you sacrifice 10 to retrieve one? What is the probability of success? How does a rescue attempt impact the primary mission objective. And yes, is the captive a comrade in arms or, as is the case with Sgt. Bergdahl, a traitor.

"More importantly, the possibility that Bergdahl had left his base in order to travel to another and report wrongdoing - which he didn't trust his possibly complicit commanders to take seriously - also went unmentioned."

First time I've seen this defense. I guess Mr. Isquith felt he had to come up with something new. Might as well have used; "Possibility Bergdahl had left his base in order to hunt for magical fairies amongst the Afghan poppy fields that had the power to end the Afghanistan conflict." Either premise is equally preposterous.

Sgt. Bergdahl deserted his post in a combat zone. Six men died searching for him on the assumption he had been taken captive against his will. There is no defense. Sgt. Bergdahl is a traitor and deserves a far harsher fate than is likely to be rendered under the Obama administration.