> The generals? You'd have to go all the back to the our Civil War and the > campaigns of George McClellan to equal their non ability.
Now you have gone too far. McClellan was heads and shoulders above the crowd. He was the most responsible for building the Union army from scratch. He understood the importance of logistics and understood the huge advantage offered by the Union Navy in allowing the out flanking of the southern armies. He understood that the threat was more powerful than the execution. His men loved him because he took care of them and didn't waste their lives in senseless frontal attacks. He forced Lee into a battle in which Lee lost more soldiers than the Union, which probably never happened again in the war. After he was sacked by Lincoln because he wasn't winning fast enough, Burnside was ordered to take the offensive. Being a toady, which is what Lincoln wanted, he went into an ill-advised offensive, got beaten very badly, and guess who was called back to service to save the Union capitol? McClellan. He handily defeated the Confederates and saved the day, but was criticized for not destroying the rebel army. He was sacked again. The man who sacked McClellan was the same man who made the incompetent Burnsides general in chief, Mr. Lincoln. And, talk about a moving target. As the body counts got dramatically higher Lincoln kept raising the rhetoric, going from saving the Union (who really cares) to saving mankind (say what?). The Gettysburg address is a piece of work. I suspect that the occupation of Iraq will be easier than the occupation of the South after the Civil War. Joel _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
