Quote

History tells us that a general can move and feed an army as efficiently as he likes, but the real litmus test is the battlefield.

A general is just as good or just as bad as the troops under his command make him.

I think on civilian casualties they could do more. It's actually something I've discussed with the editors involved. They're aware of it, and I'm hopeful that there will be more reporting on that.

The more a general is accustomed to place heavy demands on his soldiers, the more he can depend on their response.

Soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them.

Unfortunately, in war, there are casualties, including among the civilian population.

Good generalship is a realization that... you've got to try and figure out how to accomplish your mission with a minimum loss of human life.

I am convinced that the best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue along with his suit and to mothball his opinions.

Today we're faced with over 500 casualties, a cost of over $200 billion. And it could rise - the casualties could go into thousands and the cost could go over half a trillion - if we stay there for years.