I have a problem with MacArthur as the "worst." I think Ricks is overplaying his hand. Or maybe his definition of "worst" is an insufferable personality. On that count his list totally makes sense.

I don't see how you put scheming, dandy scaredy cats like McClelland or Gates up with MacArhur. Benedict Arnold puzzles me. He was a smart, brave resourceful -- and successful -- general. Aside from the defection thing, he was great. Burnside was certainly godawful. Don't know how you distinguish between a Ned Almond and a Don Carlos Buell, though. Let's not let Mead off the hook for failing to pursue Lee after Gettysburg. That could have been a game-ender.

And how does Gen. Otis of the Philippine-American War not get on the list? Talk about someone responsible for pursuing a pointless, bloody war! He wasn't "insubordinate" -- he started that war!

It's not like MacArthur didn't win any major campaigns (um, the Pacific?) and Inchon was probably the most well-executed amphib operations in US military history. He didn't exactly "lose" Korea now did he? And Benedict Arnold? Really? Aside from the whole switching-sides-business he was a smart and brave leader at many key revolutionary battles: Ticonderoga, Saratoga.