<OT> We won't back down...

[Joel Hammer]

> 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