Now, from one who spent over half his adult life learning, waging, and teaching the art of war, let me tell you what war is: War is destroying the enemy and his will to fight. Our greatest failures, Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan are caused when we forget that nations wage war against nations, not groups of unidentifiable people within nations. With the exception of the British re-entry in Malaya shortly after they surrendered the colony, there is no successful third-party led counterinsurgency to be found in history.
Lieutenant Pantano tried to destroy the enemy and his will to fight in spades, perhaps with too much gusto for some "gentler sensibilities." Lieutenants are not always known for their judgment, but immature lieutenants grow into brilliant colonels. However I, who have been in the sitaution of engaging an enemy at very close range, would never be so presumptuous as to second guess his actions in actually engaging them. I am reasonably certain that the first enemy I shot at close range required a front-end loader to recover, because of his weight gain.
So it's far more than splitting hairs. You and others are guilty of a blatant attempt to continually assassinate the character of a man because of charges that were dismissed over five years ago by a commanding general who knew far more about every aspect of Pantano's actions that you.
It's also ridiculous to assume that in a war hallmarked by "Nail the soldier/Marine/sailor" at every turn, Lieutenant Pantano was somehow the golden boy, protected from charges while everyone else was constantly having to look over their shoulder.
Tackle his positions, hate him because of the way he parts his hair, but if the best you can come up with is that Pantano fights dirty, then you really have no argument to present.
More information about formatting options