He doesn't, because they go right over his head. This army didn't have to up to beating Hitler, because we weren't fighting Hitler - so the statement was both true and absurd, with absurdity being the more important qualifier here. And Hitler was a different enemy in a different time and in a different situation. For all the whining that we didn't have a great field commander, we managed to take all of Iraq with fewer casualties than we suffered trying to maintain a few peacekeepers in Beruit.
You're right, especially when he gets help from a higher power, removing my responses to his flames. You can't call it a flame war, when one side is disarmed.
I admire your whole posting...and responses.
Thanks.
I was taken by Patton's theory to avoid foxhole digging...but rather continue moving foward. (I believe this came from someone else but your post engendered it.)
Me, too. I'll have to study up on that, since he's the only general I've heard of espousing that idea. Maybe it depends on the battlefield leader -- with the right guy, the troops go psycho and run over the opposition, but with the wrong guy, they get shot to pieces. On the other hand, you have the Civil War, where it practically became a matter of who had more bodies to throw at the enemy.