[The Urban Sombrero]

Here we go again, down a liberal rat hole. The conversation goes from how the US Military is perceived across the globe to why you personally have a vicarious ax to grind with Lt Gen Julian Ewell. There were allegations made against the General, but they did not come about until after more than 30 years following his record of distinguished service. David Hackworth's book which criticized the General extensively for example, was not written until 2003. Col Hackworth was no stranger to controversy himself though, as long before he made his ill-received allegations against Gen Ewell, he faced serious charges himself. "He was nearly court-martialed for various allegations during his Vietnam service, such as running a brothel, running gambling houses, and exploiting his position for personal profit by manipulating the scrip in which soldiers were paid and the limited U.S. currency available in the war zone. Ultimately, Secretary of the Army Robert Froehlke opted not to press charges, deciding that Hackworth's career accomplishments outweighed his supposed misdeeds, and that prosecuting an outspoken war hero would result in unneeded bad publicity for the Army.[9]" [Wiki]

And believe me, the foregoing is only the tip of the iceberg as far as Col Hackworth was concerned. He spent his life after having gone rogue and getting himself run out of the service, to living in foreign countries from then on. Then there was the 2009 Washington Post article (ever the newspaper on quest to reclaim the glory of Watergate) and the book by Nick Turse. That relatively small body of work constitutes the main criticisms of Gen Ewell, and is a far cry from a tremendous amount of testimony.

But the General was not charged, nor did he face any charge associated with his military career. There are those who would have charged him based on little more than gossip, but sanity thankfully reigns in the minds of US Commanders and so the matter was a nonstarter. But you said Gen Ewell was spared formal charges for political reasons, a charge of your own which you cannot substantiate. My reasoning, having lived a life of actual accomplishment in the US Military and in civilian pursuits, is to not stick my foot in my mouth and let the facts speak for themselves. The only thing damning by way of fact was the IG report in which it was reported that there could have been as many as 7,000 thousand civilian deaths associated with his command. The matter is closed and all the speculation in the world will not change that.

Do you discount hundreds of interviews with Vietnamese villagers from the Mekong Delta?

Perhaps you should look into Ewell's friends in high places, or does that not count as "political" in your "actual accomplishment" eyes?

And, it wasn't just Ewell; he is one example.