Yes, there were many characters who looked to avoid combat. There was nothing in the linked article to indicate Lt. Truscott took any action or had any desire whatsoever to avoid a lawful order for a combat assignment. Until and unless you can demonstrate Lt. Truscott refused a “lawful” order for a combat assignment to Vietnam, you will be wrongfully and disgracefully smearing his reputation in that one regard. However much we may dislike the messanger for other reasons, it should be recognized when the accusations do not conform with the evidence.
Truscott’s criticism of MacArthur in regard to casualties is a half-truth that amounts to deception and a lie.
Anyone’s criticism of Truscott for refusing an unlawful order may be an even worse half-truth and a lie if and when Truscott never refused a lawful order for a combat assignment to Vietnam.
2.We had a war going on.
3.His article in the Village Voice attacked the Army/supported the enemy's efforts.
4."Getting an unlawful order to go to Vietnam" should've been considered reward to a hard-charger patriotic young officer.
Clearly Truscott IV wasn't a pimple on II or II's behind. I haven't "wrongly and disgracefully smeared his reputation" - I have only illuminated the obvious. The officers we did have in Vietnam were dedicated, courageous professionals. The deadbeats who stayed back and did things to support the opposition were worse than cowards: their support of the enemy was treasonous.