With the recent recovery of prisoner of war Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, political motivation has muddied the discourse to include the long-held speculation that Bergdahl had abandoned his post and questions the wisdom of the trade on those grounds. Notwithstanding political motivations, what could motivate anyone to question the cost of the return of a soldier taken hostage on foreign soil during wartime? The obvious answer? “National Security.” This trade conflicts the American public greatly as there are competing values of “No soldier left behind,” (which has frequently occurred from the Revolutionary War onward) against “We will not negotiate with terrorists,” (which has also occurred with regularity and frequency). The confliction is further strengthened by reports of Bergdahl’s writings of his disillusionment with his country. But removing the controversy of the events leading to Bergdahl’s capture, what should America do in regards to the next prisoner of war?

“No soldier left behind,” is the Soldier’s Creed by which all United States Army personnel are encouraged to live. (As a side note the current version of the Creed was authorized by war hero and now Veteran’s Affairs scapegoat Eric Shinseki.) The mantra is engrained in nearly every American’s memory through military service, news media reporting on heroics occurring in war, or Hollywood representation in cinema and television. Perhaps the greatest embodiment of the “No Soldier Left Behind” mantra is Chuck Norris from his cult films Missing in Action. The plot behind the Missing in Action series revolves around Colonel James Braddock (Chuck Norris), an American officer imprisoned in a North Vietnamese POW camp for 7 years before escaping. Braddock returns to free the remaining prisoners as a result of government inaction and denial. Braddock leads a violent and successful assault on the POW camp, freeing the remaining American soldiers. The trailer for Missing in Action says, “American had no more heroes until now. Chuck Norris. Missing in Action.”

But America’s success has been far less than that of Chuck Norris’. It has been reported that as Bergdahl was being flown by helicopter from the exchange site, he wrote the question, “SF,” to those in the helicopter. The reported response, “Yes. We’ve been looking for you for a long time.” The negotiations for a prisoner swap has also been long in the process, publicized by

But less heroic and spoken of is the negotiations that have taken place with terrorists. The British government’s secret back channel to the IRA, the Spanish government’s sit-down with the Basque ETA, and Israel’s negations with the PLO, are all examples of negotiations with terrorist organizations. It is notable to recall that Israel negotiated the release of one soldier (Gilad Shalit) for 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. (See CNN article here.) Granted, the conditions of the capture of Bergdahl may turn out to be quite different than the attack on Israel and kidnapping of Shalit by the PLO, but 200 times greater in significance (trade of 5 prisoners vs. 1,000)?

The wisdom of the trade will obviously be judged by the action of the prisoners released in the future. There is no doubt that the five prisoners once posed a significant threat to America’s operations in Afghanistan. However, are the possibilities of future actions of these five prisoners justification to keep Bergdahl in the hands of the Taliban? Is America willing to take risks and change the course of the GWOT by using previously taboo tactics? The President has answered to the willingness to take the risk; but how will this be received at home and abroad?