[Kevin Curry]

No, just that they didn't care what the cost was.

How do you know they "didn't care" what the cost was? I'll tell you why: because you've been sold that line by socialist jelly-brained defeatists such as Cronkite, Fonda, and Moyers.

A common sense understanding of human nature teaches the opposite. Of course they cared. But our feckless politicans always gave them just enough time and space to catch their breath until their fifth column of traitors in the US could undermine the war effort and cause us to lose our will and morale.

A US victory with relatively little loss of life (on both sides) was surely achievable. We could have broken their will and morale, but the longer we dithered the more difficult and bloody that task became.

We should have fought like Patton--not McClellan.

[Non-Sequitur]

Yeah, whatever.

[PhilDragoo]

We should have fought like Patton--not McClellan.

The best poetry is brief.

[Future Snake Eater]

We should have fought like Patton--not McClellan.

Well stated.

[DeaconBenjamin]

Funny you should bring up McClellan on a thread discussing how politicians screw up battles and wars. You can mock McClellan for his Peninsular campaign, but if Lincoln had allowed him unconditional use of McDowell's corps, then there would have been no Seven Days Battles, Richmond would have been taken, and Robert Lee would be known today as the King of Spades (for digging fortifications). For my money, you can make an excellent case that the war would have ended in 1862 if Lincoln had been less like LBJ.