WASHINGTON (AP) — Two American values collided in Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's calamity. One had to give.

The one about never leaving a man behind prevailed.

The one about never negotiating with terrorists got lost in the swirling dust storm of a U.S. helicopter retrieving the soldier from his Taliban captors in a swap now provoking recriminations in Washington.

Each ethos runs deep in the American conscience, yet has been violated through history, notably in the age of terrorism, where traditional standards of warfare, spying and negotiating are run through a hall of mirrors.

Bergdahl and the five Guantanamo detainees traded for his freedom were captives in an undeclared, unconventional and open-ended war that never fit neatly into the Geneva Conventions, U.S. military doctrine or slogans about how to behave. Whatever universal rights are affirmed by the old standards, they came from an era of recognizable battlefields and POW camps, with victories and defeats signed with flourishes of a pen.

THE SOLDIER'S CREED

View gallery

FILE - In this file image taken from video obtained from Voice Of Jihad Website, which has been auth …

History is replete with extraordinary acts to bring home the lost and fallen.

The U.S. Army's Warrior Ethos and the Soldier's Creed both swear, "I will never leave a fallen comrade," and all the services place a premium on returning the missing, captured and dead. Often this comes at great cost, as in the 1993 Black Hawk Down battle in Somalia in which 18 U.S. servicemen were killed in the attack on U.S. helicopters and the subsequent rescue attempt.

President Barack Obama said the ethos is a "sacred" undertaking that applies to all in uniform without regard to rank or circumstance or, in Bergdahl's case, his questionable loyalty to the Army. "We have a basic principle," Obama said Thursday. "We do not leave anybody wearing the American uniform behind."

As Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John F. Kirby put it: "When you're in the Navy, and you go overboard, it doesn't matter if you were pushed, fell or jumped. We're going to turn the ship around and pick you up."

Not always.

View gallery

FILE - This June 4, 2014 file photo shows Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., …

The debate over Bergdahl is roiling as world leaders and ordinary citizens commemorate the 70th anniversary of D-Day. The legions storming the beaches of Normandy, France, from the sea and dropping behind German lines from the sky faced snap decisions under withering fire about what to do with the wounded or trapped. Army history tells of wounded paratroopers left behind for the sake of the mission or the survival of their units. Sometimes medics were left behind, too, because they insisted on staying with the injured.

When the Korean War ended in 1953, thousands of missing and dead American soldiers were left behind, as well as POWs, as U.S. forces retreated from North Korea. Not all the missing and dead were returned after the truce and there was strong evidence some POWs were not handed over. Today the Pentagon is still trying to retrieve remains through a process, currently stalled, of paying North Koreans to support field excavations.

The Pentagon agency primarily responsible for survival training for captured troops and for helping them back at home says the mission of bringing them back is "truly and uniquely an indelible part of the American way."

ANOTHER AMERICAN WAY

Never negotiate with terrorists or hostage-takers? Not quite never.

View gallery

FILE - This image taken from video obtained from Voice Of Jihad Website, authenticated based on its …

The Sept. 11 attacks broke open the modern age of asymmetric warfare. Asymmetric dealmaking, diplomacy and national security went hand in hand with that. The old standards and slogans still had meaning but improvisation was required.

Prisoners taken in the fight against terrorism could not be considered prisoners of war in the U.S. government's estimation because branding them POWs might extend them rights they were not accorded at Guantanamo, never mind the now-discontinued CIA "black sites."

Ways were found to deal with those who don't fight by the rules. As in Bergdahl's case, where the government of Qatar served as go-between, intermediaries are usually involved to maintain a semblance of separation between two sides that aren't really supposed to be talking to each other.

Just months after the 2001 attacks, the U.S. dropped its straightforward ban on government involvement in ransom to hostage-takers, for example. The new policy created more wiggle room for the U.S. to facilitate ransom payments and to shape negotiations, however indirectly, with captors.

The policy provided cover for the U.S. to try to free terrorist-held missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham in the Philippines in 2002 but failed to achieve a peaceful transfer: Martin Burnham died in the eventual assault on the captors.

View gallery

FILE - This June 6, 2014, file photo shows U.S. Senator Ted Cruz explains his objections to trading …

To be sure, unsavory and prohibited deal-making has a long history, too.

Ronald Reagan's presidency is stained by the Iran-contra scandal, in which Iran, designated a state sponsor of terrorism, was to be secretly sold U.S. arms in exchange for the release of hostages, with proceeds steered illegally to Nicaraguan rebels.

The ethos against granting concessions of any kind to scoundrels gave rise to a patriotic rallying cry a century ago in the time of President Teddy Roosevelt and a Moroccan plunderer who became known as the first terrorist of the 1900s.

After Ahmed ibn-Muhammed Raisuli took Greek-American businessman Ion Perdicaris hostage for money and political influence, the U.S. dispatched warships while Roosevelt's secretary of state demanded of Morocco's sultan: "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead."

The effect of that ultimatum was electrifying at home and, days later, Perdicaris was free. But it turned out the U.S. had quietly pressed for Raisuli's ransom demands to be met, which they were.

The U.S. appeared to be wielding Roosevelt's big stick.

Actually it spoke softly to a terrorist.

___

Associated Press writers Nancy Benac, Robert Burns and Donna Cassata contributed to this report.

View Gallery

U.S. values collide in Bergdahl release

The longstanding principles of never negotiating with terrorists, and never leaving a man behind, were at odds.
Historical precedents

Screenshot/CNA

The Arctic, long considered an almost worthless backwater, is primed to become one of the most important regions in the world as its ice melts over the next few decades.

Unlike every other maritime area in the world, there is no overarching legal treaty governing the Arctic. Instead, the Arctic Council, made up of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the U.S., oversees and coordinates policy.

But the Arctic Council has no regulatory power. The countries only use the Council to communicate on policy and research and each member state is free to pursue its own policies within their declared Arctic boundaries.

According to a presentation by the Council of Foreign Relations, t he Arctic is of primary strategic significance to the five bordering Arctic Ocean states — the U.S. (red), Canada (orange), Russia (grey), Norway (blue), and Denmark (green).

View gallery

.

Council on Foreign Relations

The 1.1 million square miles of open water north of accepted national boundaries — dubbed the Arctic Ocean “donut hole” — is considered the high sea and is therefore beyond the Arctic states' jurisdictions.

As the Arctic ice melts, the area is predicted to become a center of strategic competition and economic activity. Last year, China signed a free trade agreement with Iceland and sent an icebreaker to the region despite having no viable claims in the Arctic.

View gallery

.

Council on Foreign Relations

The Arctic summer sea ice is melting rapidly

The region is stocked with valuable oil, gas, mineral, and fishery reserves. The U.S. estimates that a significant proportion of the Earth’s untapped petroleum — including about 15% of the world's remaining oil, up to 30% of its natural gas deposits, and about 20% of its liquefied natural gas — are stored in the Arctic seabed.

And in terms of preparation, America is lagging behind its potential competitors.

In front is Russia, which symbolically placed a Russian flag on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean near the North Pole in 2007. The country, one-fifth of which lies within the Arctic Circle, has by far the most amount of developed oil fields in the region.

View gallery

.

Council on Foreign Relations

CFR notes that many observers "consider Russia, which is investing tens of billions of dollars in its northern infrastructure, the most dominant player in the Arctic."

Shipping throughout the Arctic will also take on unprecedented importance as the ice recedes — and the Kremlin has a plan for taking advantage of this changing geography.

Russia wants the Northern Sea Route, where traffic jumped from four vessels in 2010 to 71 in 2013, to eventually rival the Suez Canal as a passage between Europe and Asia. And it could: The Northern Sea Route from Europe to Asia takes only 35 days, compared to a 48-day journey between the continents via the Suez Canal.

View gallery

.

CNA

Because of the Arctic's potential resources and trade impact, countries are stepping up military development in the region.

For years, Norway has been conducting "Operation Cold Response." This year, the military exercise brought in more than 16,000 troops from 15 participating NATO members.

A U.S. Arctic Roadmap promotes naval security, the development of operational experience in an Arctic environment, and the bolstering of naval readiness and capability. The Navy has accelerated its plan after noting that it is "inadequately prepared to conduct sustained maritime operations in the Arctic."

View gallery

.

i.imgur.com

The US Navy attack submarine USS Annapolis (SSN 760) rests in the Arctic Ocean after surfacing through three feet of ice during Ice Exercise 2009 on March 21, 2009.

Russia, meanwhile, has reinvigorated its process of building its naval operations on its northern coast.

"Russia, the only non-NATO littoral Arctic state, has made a military buildup in the Arctic a strategic priority, restoring Soviet-era airfields and ports and marshaling naval assets," the CFR presentation explains. "In late 2013, President Vladimir Putin instructed his military leadership to pay particular attention to the Arctic, saying Russia needed 'every lever for the protection of its security and national interests there.' He also ordered the creation of a new strategic military command in the Russian Arctic by the end of 2014."

CFR notes that while most experts dismiss the prospects for armed aggression in the Arctic, "some defense analysts and academics assert that territorial disputes and a competition for resources have primed the Arctic for a new Cold War."