I love my Army, but in the case of Major Matthew Goldsteyn, the Army is completely wrong. Here is why:
That, folks, is bovine excrement. Bergdahl would not have been in Taliban custody — and he did not look the worse for it — if he had not deserted his post in combat, a crime punishable by the death penalty.
Major Goldsteyn killed the enemy, and now he is facing, at a minimum, life in prison, Ft. Leavenworth, I suppose right beside US Army 1LT Clint Lorance, who also faced and killed the enemy in Afghanistan.
Secretary of the Army Mark Esper, sir, grow a pair and bring an end to this disgusting procedure. Who the heck will want to join the Army if all it is about is placing women in infantry units and imprisoning warriors? I call upon you, right now, Secretary Esper, to stop this proceeding against Major Matthew Goldsteyn, and release 1LT Clint Lorance. This is highly disturbing, and I know a thing or two about the Army system of “justice.”
There are many of us, veterans, and current soldiers, watching this case, and what you and Chief of Staff General Milley will do. Both of you seek higher aspirations. General Milley, do you truly believe you deserve to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Yes, this is upsetting, and you both should be upset. The mission of the US Army is to train, deploy, and fight . . . that means kill the enemy. If the Army is now about imprisoning those who rightfully kill the enemy — and in the case of Clint Lorance, the Army withheld exculpatory evidence — then just admit our Army is just a social justice experiment and no longer a warfighting entity.
As I have stated before, charging soldiers with premeditated murder in a combat zone is like writing speeding tickets at the Daytona 500.
SecArmy Esper and General Milley, explain to us why Bowe Bergdahl and Bradley Manning are walking free before you go any further with this nonsense, this abject stupidity. A Taliban bomb maker is dead . . . that’s a damn good thing!
This column was originally published at The Old School Patriot
The views expressed in CCNS member articles are not necessarily the views or positions of the entire CCNS. They are the views of the authors, who are members of the CCNS.