When news emerged that U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl had been released by his Taliban captors last Saturday, attention and scrutiny focused on the machinations leading to his release. Questions of executive privilege, the ramifications of the prisoner exchange which secured his release, and the potential illegality of President Obama’s actions took center stage—only to be supplanted by accusations of Bergdahl defecting to the Taliban and purposely abandoning his post. Taking a defiant posture, the Defense Department promised a thorough investigation into comment and emails from Bergdahl that alluded to anti-war sentiments and possible collusion with the Taliban—though representatives were less direct when talking about any possibility of treason or related charges.

The tale of a soldier losing faith in an unpopular war is not uncommon; nor are acts of defiance. The story of Chelsea Manning resonates on many levels with Bergdahl’s dissatisfaction with the American mission in Afghanistan: both soldiers felt at odds with Army culture, the Global War on Terror, and their roles in foreign intervention. In emails first published by Rolling Stone in 2012, Bergdahl writes:

In the US army you are cut down for being honest… but if you are a conceited brown nosing shit bag you will be allowed to do what ever you want, and you will be handed your higher rank… The system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an american. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools…I am sorry for everything here. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live.

Manning, on the other hand, complained of Army culture not accommodating her as an equal, alongside perpetuating false images of what military intervention truly looked like in Iraq and Afghanistan. Manning wrote in a chat session with confidant Zach Antolak that:

The army took me, a web dev, threw me into a rigid schedule, removed me from my digital self and threw me in the forests of Missouri for 10 weeks with an old M-16 Reagan-era load-­bearing equipment, and 50 twanging people hailing from places like Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi… joy. What the hell did I put myself through?

Manning continued, saying, “I actually believe what the army tries to make itself out to be: a diverse place full of people defending the country […] but its still a male-dominated, christian-right, oppressive organization, with a few hidden jems [sic] of diversity.”

Increasing dissatisfaction with her role the war effort led Manning to reach out to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, prompting one of the largest data breaches in U.S. history and official condemnation of Manning as a traitor—a digital deserter of the oath to preserve documents. Manning’s actions led her to be the first U.S. soldier charged with giving information to the enemy since 1863, a crime which could have resulted in a death sentence, and one that sent a decisive message to any would-be whistleblowers within Army ranks. With reports emerging that Taliban attacks became increasingly accurate in the weeks following Bergdahl’s capture, many suggest that there may have been collusion between Bergdahl and his captors, though the White House has neglected to raise any similar claims of Bergdahl aiding the enemy as they had for Manning.

What remains to be seen in these contrasting cases is whether Bergdahl will undergo the strict scrutiny placed upon Manning after his act of subversion. Though an investigation has been promised into Bergdahl’s case, officials seem less than eager to begin this process. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, states, “As for the circumstances of his capture, when he is able to provide them, we’ll learn the facts. Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty.” Whether or not a full investigation will occur, if Bergdahl will be found to have been purposely negligent in leaving his post (and apparently leaving his weapons and belongings behind on the night he went missing), and if he will face any stricter punishments for his actions are yet to be determined.

The most important question in this is why one act of desertion led to concerted displays of support, while the other brought scorn: officials assert Bergdahl’s actions as being by-the-book, while Manning’s whisteblowing was seen as a grievous offense. Two soldiers—both outcasts within the Army, both dissatisfied with their roles in interventions they no longer supported—receiving two markedly different treatments by their government creates an intriguing and morally-tangled narrative as further details emerge. By taking unconventional action to free Bergdahl, the Obama administration creates a confounding precedent for future negotiations with enemy forces. What is even more telling is the Administration’s differing levels of support and disdain for altruistic whistleblowers versus dissatisfied soldiers—one wielding esoteric damage and being subjected to a 35-year prison sentence, and the other being looked at as having “suffered enough” during captivity to not warrant additional punishment.

Manning is not the average soldier—nor is her case a clear-cut one. That Bergdahl was in theater during his possible desertion should not allow for greater leeway in his investigation, and it is now up to the administration to ensure that due diligence is conducted once the chorus of self-congratulatory praise begins to fade.

·

Brian O’Connor is a freelance writer and editor. By day, he is a book editor focusing on politics and current affairs.