A review of the database of casualties in the Afghan war suggests that Sergeant Bergdahl’s critics appear to be blaming him for every American soldier killed in Paktika Province in the four-month period that followed his disappearance.
This from
yesterday morning's New York Times, which clearly demonstrates that the probability that anyone died in the Bergdahl search effort is remote at best, and much more likely, non-existent. Let's do something virtually no other source seemed to be able to accomplish, and follow the truth crumbs to see where they lead.
Ok, here's the timeline:
1 - Bergdahl is discovered to be missing on 30 Jun 2009, and a search effort was launched immediately.
2 - The search effort was partly unmanned, leveraging "Predator drones, Apache attack helicopters and military tracking dogs." No one on this assignment was officially pronounced as a casualty during its tenure, nor, ultimately, at any point in time.
3 - The main search effort wound down after eight days, which would make it 08 Jul 2009 at the latest.
4 - Approximately two months later, two members of Third Platoon lost their lives (Bergdahl was with Second Platoon), and rank and file service personnel of Second Platoon apparently believed that Third Platoon's mission at the time involved the search for Sergeant Bergdahl.
Lieutenant Darryn Andrews and Private First Class Matthew Martinek, both of Third Platoon, lost their lives on 04 Sep 2009 and 11 Sep 2009 respectively.
5 - Did either of these servicepersons on routine patrols in tandem with Second Patrol lose their lives while officially searching for Bergdahl? Especially considering that the official search period concluded almost two months before, the possibility is unlikely, according to reliable sources:
A Defense Department official said it was unclear whether the two men were killed directly because of the search for Sergeant Bergdahl.
6 - American lives were lost on 04 Jul 2009 when a combat post was nearly over-run by Taliban forces, and "some soldiers" contended that enemy forces chose that date and time to conduct the operation because they were convinced that US forces would be divided due to the ongoing search for Bergdahl during that period.
Conducting "surprise" attacks on major holidays (in this case, US Independence Day) is a such a time-honored practice as to become so cliché as to be practically expected.
And once again, US Military Officers, who's function it is to provide answers to such questions, seem to disagree with the Taliban-attacking-during-a-Bergdahl-search conjecture:
American military officers said they saw no evidence that the Taliban started the attack on the outpost because they thought everyone would be out searching for Sergeant Bergdahl.
One Senior Officer in particular provides this analysis:
“This was a dangerous region in Afghanistan in the middle of the ‘fighting season,’ ” the officer said in an email, adding that although the search “could have created some opportunities for the enemy,” it is “difficult to establish a direct cause and effect.”
That's it. There are no other potential tie-ins between the death of on-duty service personnel and the official search for Bergdahl. What we have here is a handful of soldiers insisting that the deaths occurred during such searches, while official military officer reports state otherwise.
I was never in the military, but I've interacted with them on an official basis for decades. A "troop" is a "mushroom", who is told the objective of the mission but not nature of it, which leads one to believe that deaths occurring on a purported official Bergdahl search effort was simply speculation. While yesterday's article in the NYT does make the claim that:
. . . some soldiers contend they were effectively searching for 90 days because of clear orders: If they heard rumors from locals that Sergeant Bergdahl might be nearby, they should patrol the area.
. . . nothing demonstrates -
and most official reports contradict - the notion that service fatalities occurred while those persons were conducting an official search for Bergdahl.
If you do an online search, you'll find hundreds - if not thousands - of Bergdahl articles stating as "fact" that service personnel were killed in the rescue attempt. Any one of them could have done the same analysis using major published sources which I did, and it only took me ten minutes to work it all out.
The truth still counts, people.
Addendum: The always gracious POTUS apologized for breaking the rules and not informing the Legislative Branch of his decision to bring Bergdahl back within the specified 30-day timeframe. I'm asking why that apology was necessary.
First of all, what action could/should the Senate have taken if that 30-day notice was indeed given? I'm suggesting that it's a useless requirement that does nothing more than inflate Senate egos and decidedly gets in the way.
The President chose real leadership instead - rather than risk a delicate and carefully crafted and signed deal at the hands of political wolves, he simply took decisive action and apologized later. Which is just what he should have done.
6:15 AM PT: As if by magic, this morning's NYT agrees. Thanks to aoeu for providing the link: http://www.nytimes.com/...