5 ms·

Really depends on where you look. Several outlets are stating 6 people died[1], some say just 2, some say nobody died. Fox news sometimes initially claimed it w

Really depends on where you look. Several outlets are stating 6 people died[1], some say just 2, some say nobody died. Fox news sometimes initially claimed it was 2, then later 6. Occasionally they (media outlets, not just Fox) point out that people died while searching for Bergdahl while off-duty... so how that gets attributed to his search I have no idea [2]. In testimony, two officers part of the search testified saying nobody died.[3] It's sad how politicized this has become. Even Fox news concedes "The official said the two soldiers in Bergdahl’s unit who died were in a combat outpost that was attacked. The official said it was impossible to prove a link between their deaths and Bergdahl's disappearance. In addition, investigators have determined that some of the other eight soldiers were killed while driving a logistic delivery to the base, and likely would have been doing so regardless of the search." [2, same source] [1] http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/03/26/these-are-us-soldiers-who-died-searching-bowe-bergdahl http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/03/26/these-are-us-soldiers-w... [2] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/06/two-soldiers-from-bergdahl-unit-killed-while-search-was-ongoing-pentagon-finds.html http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/06/two-soldiers-from... [3] http://www.stripes.com/closing-statements-should-bergdahl-be-court-martialed-or-are-charges-too-harsh-1.368874 http://www.stripes.com/closing-statements-should-bergdahl-be...

MrZongle2 11y ago
Even if no soldiers perished in the search for Bergdahl, it clearly was a dangerous, hostile environment. The planned 20-mile trip back to FOB Sharana wasn't just a day hike, and Bergdahl was either a fool or indifferent to the dangers it posed to both him and the individuals who would come looking for him.
- thieving_magpie 11y ago
  I don't think you'll find anyone arguing it was anything other than pure stupidity or mental illness - Bergdahl included.
- cwyers 11y ago
  I am not going to defend Bergdahl. At all. What he did was stupid, reckless and negligent. But the guy spent five pretty hellish years as a Taliban captive, is going to get drummed out of the Army unceremonious as his best-case scenario, and is going to wear this stigma the rest of his life. He has certainly suffered for what he's done. I don't think it's necessary to make up things to make what he did seem worse than it was, because it was already an incredibly wrong thing for him to have done. And as far as I can tell, the evidence that anyone was killed as result of what he did just isn't there.
zeveb 11y ago
> people died while searching for Bergdahl while off-duty... so how that gets attributed to his search I have no idea There's not really any such thing as 'off-duty' in the military (which is why servicemen have to take leave for weekend days): one's either at work, or on liberty. But liberty in a combat zone just means, 'eating, showering, reading or sleeping.'
- mbrameld 11y ago
  Only have to take leave for weekends in certain situations, like if you're taking Friday and Monday off and will be out of the local area the entire time.
  - zeveb 11y ago
    > Only have to take leave for weekends in certain situations, like if you're taking Friday and Monday off and will be out of the local area the entire time. That's because a normal weekend is simply a two-day liberty. But one's not truly off-duty; one's commanding officer may direct one to show up instead (he may cancel leave, too, but that's a different process). When one is out of the area, one is no longer physically able to return to one's work station within a short length of time, which is why leave (vice liberty) is required. Unlike the civilian world, the military ain't a 9-to-5 job!
    - cwyers 11y ago
      I think you're mixing up the concepts of leave, liberty and duty. Libo can be secured without you being on duty; you can't leave the base or do other things when liberty is secured, but you're not on duty just because liberty is secured.
cookiecaper 11y ago
>It's sad how politicized this has become. Totally agree. I think if there's one thing that shows Republicans refuse to let Obama have credit for anything, it's the prisoner exchange for Bergdahl. The Republicans should've been happy that one of the troops they so fervently idolize was brought home, and they undoubtedly would've been if it was done under the supervision of a Republican administration.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  You don't really have a good mental picture of how your political opponents think -- you're just running them as stereotype models and arguing with the stereotypes. Just as a for example, if you actually paid attention to what they say and how they'd behave, you'd notice that Republicans, while supporting soldiers generally, don't like deserters (and especially deserters who badmouth the Army and the U.S.) specifically, and especially didn't like the idea of trading five high-ranking Taliban commanders for such a person. Their reaction to Bergdahl is therefore not particularly surprising.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - thieving_magpie 11y ago
    Disliking deserters or freeing Taliban prisoners really isn't a partisan issue. Where I take issue was the immediate media firestorm created not 24 hours after his release was announced. We were bombarded with stories describing soldier deaths (that are now thought to be incorrect) attributed to his desertion and reminders that we "used to shoot" them. We're talking about a man that, either through mental illness or a legitimate desire to try and improve the operations of the army, walked away from the (relative) safety of his comrades and was held for FIVE years by the enemy. Yes he endangered his fellow soldiers lives, yes he may have deserted his post, and yes he may have been disillusioned with the army at the time. Is that worth throwing his life away and spitting on his grave? If I'm a prospective soldier, I'd like to think the military has my back in these situations. Why do you think the rush to destroy this soldiers reputation before the facts were known happened? Why do you think nearly two years after his release today is the first time we've ever heard his voice? It's certainly interesting to consider.

MrZongle2 11y ago

Even if no soldiers perished in the search for Bergdahl, it clearly was a dangerous, hostile environment. The planned 20-mile trip back to FOB Sharana wasn't just a day hike, and Bergdahl was either a fool or indifferent to the dangers it posed to both him and the individuals who would come looking for him.

thieving_magpie 11y ago
I don't think you'll find anyone arguing it was anything other than pure stupidity or mental illness - Bergdahl included.
cwyers 11y ago
I am not going to defend Bergdahl. At all. What he did was stupid, reckless and negligent. But the guy spent five pretty hellish years as a Taliban captive, is going to get drummed out of the Army unceremonious as his best-case scenario, and is going to wear this stigma the rest of his life. He has certainly suffered for what he's done. I don't think it's necessary to make up things to make what he did seem worse than it was, because it was already an incredibly wrong thing for him to have done. And as far as I can tell, the evidence that anyone was killed as result of what he did just isn't there.

zeveb 11y ago

> people died while searching for Bergdahl while off-duty... so how that gets attributed to his search I have no idea There's not really any such thing as 'off-duty' in the military (which is why servicemen have to take leave for weekend days): one's either at work, or on liberty. But liberty in a combat zone just means, 'eating, showering, reading or sleeping.'

mbrameld 11y ago
Only have to take leave for weekends in certain situations, like if you're taking Friday and Monday off and will be out of the local area the entire time.
- zeveb 11y ago
  > Only have to take leave for weekends in certain situations, like if you're taking Friday and Monday off and will be out of the local area the entire time. That's because a normal weekend is simply a two-day liberty. But one's not truly off-duty; one's commanding officer may direct one to show up instead (he may cancel leave, too, but that's a different process). When one is out of the area, one is no longer physically able to return to one's work station within a short length of time, which is why leave (vice liberty) is required. Unlike the civilian world, the military ain't a 9-to-5 job!
  - cwyers 11y ago
    I think you're mixing up the concepts of leave, liberty and duty. Libo can be secured without you being on duty; you can't leave the base or do other things when liberty is secured, but you're not on duty just because liberty is secured.

cookiecaper 11y ago

>It's sad how politicized this has become. Totally agree. I think if there's one thing that shows Republicans refuse to let Obama have credit for anything, it's the prisoner exchange for Bergdahl. The Republicans should've been happy that one of the troops they so fervently idolize was brought home, and they undoubtedly would've been if it was done under the supervision of a Republican administration.

13thLetter 11y ago
You don't really have a good mental picture of how your political opponents think -- you're just running them as stereotype models and arguing with the stereotypes. Just as a for example, if you actually paid attention to what they say and how they'd behave, you'd notice that Republicans, while supporting soldiers generally, don't like deserters (and especially deserters who badmouth the Army and the U.S.) specifically, and especially didn't like the idea of trading five high-ranking Taliban commanders for such a person. Their reaction to Bergdahl is therefore not particularly surprising.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- thieving_magpie 11y ago
  Disliking deserters or freeing Taliban prisoners really isn't a partisan issue. Where I take issue was the immediate media firestorm created not 24 hours after his release was announced. We were bombarded with stories describing soldier deaths (that are now thought to be incorrect) attributed to his desertion and reminders that we "used to shoot" them. We're talking about a man that, either through mental illness or a legitimate desire to try and improve the operations of the army, walked away from the (relative) safety of his comrades and was held for FIVE years by the enemy. Yes he endangered his fellow soldiers lives, yes he may have deserted his post, and yes he may have been disillusioned with the army at the time. Is that worth throwing his life away and spitting on his grave? If I'm a prospective soldier, I'd like to think the military has my back in these situations. Why do you think the rush to destroy this soldiers reputation before the facts were known happened? Why do you think nearly two years after his release today is the first time we've ever heard his voice? It's certainly interesting to consider.