Bowe Bergdahl’s release in exchange for five militants raises new questions over America’s anti-terror policies. In 2001, after 9/11, the Bush administration carefully constructed a narrative to support their intervention in Afghanistan. The Taliban government was only recognized by three countries across the world. The US was not one of them. The Taliban government’s refusal to give Osama Bin Laden to America, and their inextricable ties to the Al-Qaeda helped the US in terming this conflict beyond the scope of conventional warfare. For the first time, the theater of war was not important, because the enemy was terror itself, and that meant that there would be no negotiations, no quarter. Is the country’s principle stand against conducting negotiations with terrorists being forgone in favour of preserving the military’s commitment to leave no soldier behind on the battlefield? If so, then why now, and why for a man that many in the military have dubbed a deserter, after reports revealed that right before he was kidnapped, Bergdahl had left the base on his volition?
Does this mean that the US is looking to tie up all loose ends before they leave Afghanistan? The pullout has been announced, and the US is leaving behind 9800 troops to train the Afghan military and keep the militants at bay. The escalation of the conflict in Syria and its neighbors, and the inclusion of militants from across the globe with interference from countries such as Russia and Saudi Arabia means that the Middle East continues to gain relevance as more foreign fighters travel to continue their fight. But how does any of this explain the shift of stance of the US on negotiations with terrorists? Furthermore, will this prisoner swap open avenues for further kidnappings by militants? And lastly, how is the US going to ensure that the five prisoners that have been released will not look to resume terrorist activities? Or are they pulling their stakes out of the region, and so have ceased to care?