The Difference Between Rescue and Ransom

It’s the difference between victory and defeat.

One of the most extraordinary and costly rescues in American history occurred in April 1972, after Iceal “Gene” Hambleton’s electronics-warfare plane (call sign “Bat 21”) was shot down at the onset of the North Vietnamese Army’s Easter offensive. When he had been stuck behind enemy lines for more than a week, the Air Force launched an all-out effort to rescue him, at that time the largest rescue operation in USAF history.

It was costly. Eleven soldiers and airmen died, and the rescue impaired our overall military operations in response to the NVA offensive.

Still, we did not leave Hambleton behind. The cost was terrible, but we did not break faith with a man in uniform, trapped and alone in enemy territory. Days later, the rescue effort finally succeeded, as Navy and South Vietnamese SEALs safely retrieved him after a ground escape that is now the stuff of cinematic legend.

I couldn’t help but think of this costly rescue when I read reports of the lives lost searching for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. Those lives were not sacrificed in vain. Men died fulfilling a sacred obligation to fellow soldiers, an obligation that gives every man and woman in uniform comfort that they will never be alone, never be abandoned, even if they make terrible mistakes.

But Sergeant Bergdahl — ultimately — was not rescued. He was ransomed. And the difference between rescue and ransom is the difference between victory and defeat.

This distinction seems lost on some defenders of the Bergdahl deal. Harry Reid tweeted that “we rescue our soldiers first and ask questions later.”

Writing in The New Republic, Brian Beutler says “abandonment” is the “inescapable conclusion” of conservative critiques of the ransom deal.

He goes on:

But if the deal was bad, and was bad largely on account of Bergdahl’s unworthiness of sacrifice, then this is an endorsement of the idea that he should be in Taliban custody today, perhaps traded down the line for something less valuable than five Guantanamo detainees who probably would’ve had to be released anyhow . . . But to the extent that they’ve avoided the second half of the cost/benefit issue, it’s by arguing that Obama would’ve been on firmer ground ordering a rescue operation, and avoiding tradeoffs altogether. Out of the other side of their mouths, though, they effuse outrage over the fact that U.S. troops died trying unsuccessfully to rescue this same deserter.

But the assertion that conservatives are speaking out of the “other side of their mouths” misses the critical reality of successful military rescues. A successful rescue typically results in the death or capture of enemy soldiers, costs the enemy its valued asset — in this case an American prisoner — and discourages hostage-taking by raising the price for no return.

A ransom, on the other hand, gives the enemy an additional asset (in this case, five valued commanders), leaves his capturing forces intact, and encourages future hostage-taking. The defeat of ransom is compounded when we give far more than we receive: giving away the Taliban “dream team” for a sergeant who apparently deserted his post.

American soldiers do not shy away from taking great risks to retrieve fellow soldiers. In fact, as former Army officer Andrew Exum points out, men have died trying to rescue soldiers who have made terrible mistakes. In this case, Bergdahl’s brothers took great risks to find a man that they believed deserted his post. That is the very definition of selfless sacrifice.

The ransom, by contrast, holds no honor. It is the admission of defeat. Indeed, it acts not just as a reward for the Taliban, but essentially as an unmerited award for Bergdahl, a signal that we will violate our longstanding principles and sacrifice the success of our mission just to bring a potential deserter home.

This award became explicit when his parents were treated to the Rose Garden welcome that the parents of the fallen men who searched for Bergdahl never received. The contrast is a moral outrage. The heroes of the story were the men who died attempting the rescue, not the anti-American soldier who walked off his base.

The contrast between rescue and ransom is not difficult to grasp. Indeed, it’s one that warriors instinctively understand. We know that our brothers will lay down their lives for us. We also know they won’t accept defeat for us.

But that’s precisely what the Obama administration did. It voluntarily accepted defeat — for a man who despised his own country.

In 1972, eleven men died to rescue Hambleton. Those men died accomplishing a mission and defeating the enemy. In 2009, eight men died searching for Bergdahl. They gave their lives in a noble cause. Such is the dreadful cost of war, and it is a cost that soldiers understand.

Fewer soldiers understand giving the enemy what it wants for a man who likely betrayed his brothers.

That’s not war. That’s a form of surrender.

— David French is an attorney and a veteran of the Iraq War.

Also read: Why So Many Soldiers are Angry at the Bergdahl Deal