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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them.
The more a general is accustomed to place heavy demands on his soldiers, the more he can depend on their response.
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.
Armies are not only for offensives.
It takes 15,000 casualties to train a major general.
As an infantry officer who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, I have led men in combat and trained them on tactics and strategy. The mission of the infantry is to 'close with, and destroy, the enemy.' Our job, in a direct way, is to fight and win wars.
Victory usually goes to the army who has better trained officers and men.
One just principle from the depths of a cave is more powerful than an army.
A general is just as good or just as bad as the troops under his command make him.
It won't be a question of how well-trained or well-equipped the army is but one of the authority it serves.