Now we have a whole load of manure dumping on Sgt. Bergdahl and his family and his neighbors, based on what looked to me like an unsupported set of rumors that he had deserted his post and therefore didn't "deserve" to be brought home because men died searching for him. His home town has had to cancel a homecoming celebration because the Internet trolls have flooded the town with threatening emails and letters.
My first response was to say, we don't even know who these people are who are saying this, since the Internet is full of anonymous trolls. Today, however, the New York Times editorial board published a detailed analysis of the situation, The Rush to Demonize Sgt. Berdahl, in which they say they've established that yes, the accusers were in Berdahl's unit. But read this excerpt (read the whole thing, but especially this):
"Republican operatives have arranged for soldiers in his unit to tell reporters that he was a deserter who cost the lives of several soldiers searching for him. In fact, a review of casualty reports by Charlie Savage and Andrew Lehren of The Times showed there is no clear link between any military deaths and the search."
And a classified military report shows that Sergeant Bergdahl had walked away from assigned areas at least twice before and had returned, according to a report in The Times on Thursday. It describes him as a free-spirited young man who asked many questions but gave no indication of being a deserter, let alone the turncoat that Mr. Obama’s opponents are now trying to create.
If anything, the report suggests that the army unit’s lack of security and discipline was as much to blame for the disappearance, given the sergeant’s history.We're all sadly used to the fact that on the Internet, you're guilty if anybody says you are, no matter the actual facts and no matter whether you know who the accusers are or not. But the NY Times account raises an even nastier set of suppositions. In my studies of military history, the U.S. military has always made every effort to bring missing soldiers home, even if all they could find was bones (and, as the Times points out, even if the soldiers had in fact deserted before being captured). Ask the people still looking for remains in the jungles of Vietnam. But here we have a man who walks away from camp and is captured - and 5 years later the men he served with accuse him of desertion and say or imply that he shouldn't have been rescued. If you follow the link about the Republican operatives arranging the interviews, you'll find that some people didn't like him because he "wouldn’t drink beer or eat barbecue and hang out with the other 20-year-olds.” Apparently his "buddies" found it particularly offensive that he was trying to learn Dari and Arabic and Pashto.
What happened to the concept that the soldiers in the units had each other's backs? In today's army, do the guys in the unit have your back only if they like you?? How do you ensure unit cohesion under fire if your "buddies" are willing to dump on you for no obvious reason? I don't know that's what was going on, but from what the Times has unearthed, I think we have to ask the questions.
If the Army thinks there's cause to suspect he deserted, let's have a court-martial. Let's get witnesses under oath and have a decision made by a military judge, and find out what happened. This has gotten so bad that nothing but the facts will clear it up, if it's still possible to establish what the facts are.
When I was growing up I was taught that you are innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, even in our courts that's no longer true. But if we reach a point where you are guilty when social media - or mass media, a lot of this is coming from Fox News - say you are, we are in even worse case than I feared.
