I'm sure there are more knowledgeable Civil War buffs out there than I am, but on first blush, I'd say the Missouri Proving Grounds theory doesn't hold much water.

The southern generals were either ineffective, or were in the eastern theater. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Longstreet - all eastern. Albert Sydney Johnston was the best general they ever had in the west, and he died at Shiloh, and never commanded beyond the Mississippi (or if he did, it was administratively, not in person). Forrest was a natural-born calvary leader, but I don't believe he ever crossed the Mississippi.

For the north, yes, Grant's first battle was in Missouri (Belmont), but he developed his fighting style and big-picture perspective over years of fighting, mostly in Tennessee - Shiloh was a huge lesson-learned moment; and Vicksburg and Chattanooga were what really taught him what he needed to know to confront Lee. I doubt the inconclusive skirmish with Pillow at Belmont had much to do with the general he became.

Sherman was in St. Louis when the "St. Louis Massacre" occured - he saw the captured militia being paraded through the city, and when the riot broke out, he laid on top of his young son to protect him and heard the bullets whizzing past! But he was a railroad executive at that point - his first service was at First Bull Run.

Halleck commanded the Trans-Mississippi early in the war, but wasn't really an effective leader - much better administrator, and hence he ended up Chief of Staff; Fremont wasn't exactly effective (quite the opposite); Sigel was a disaster; Curtis was good but never did anything outside Missouri; and the unfortunately-named Jefferson C. Davis, while a competent commander, never rose above brigadier general (because he'd murdered his superior officer in 1862, Major General Nelson!).

Sheridan spent time early in the war in southwest Missouri, at Pea Ridge and at Boonville. His skill as a general was definitely influenced by his time there, and he brought that experience east with him. But other than him, I can't really see an argument for anyone else.

There may have been some folks enmeshed in Bleeding Kansas in the 1850's who later went on to prominence, but I'm not enough of a buff to know that...but all in all, I'd need to see a lot of new information before I'd subscribe to that theory...

Scratch that theory...thanks!

By the way, that article is fantastic. I'm certainly no military expert, and as much as I try to think of the big picture, I often fall pitifully short. During First Falluja, the thought of what comes next wasn't on my radar - I just sort of figured it would be like anywhere else...the thought of needing to let the situation on the ground change before the decisive military engagement - it's obvious, even if it wasn't obvious to me at the time.

The problem, of course, is whether that's really what's happening today in Israel. Is Bush really pushing this path because he believes the answer to the question, "then what?" will have significantly better answers in a year? Or is it because Olmert's too weak, and Bush is providing cover? We can't know, of course, but the only thing that gives me hope is my confidence in Bush. He's a dumb monkey when he opens his word hole in public, but he's a brilliant administrator when he sets big-picture goals then lets his people fulfill them...he sustains policy, seemingly on nothing more than his own shoulders, which gives the folks under him the room to work effectively...I wish, as does everyone, that he could communicate effectively, but far more important, at least in these opening years of this conflict, is wise policy, effectively pursued.

I agree.

Israel is in the strange position of having a populace willing to fight, and a government that can't stomach it. One hopes new leaders will arise, but that has not been their strong point, perhaps because so much compromise is necessary in their always-divided parliament.

It's sobering to think that Ariel Sharon was in many ways a man of the 1950's. That's actually when he had his biggest influence on history, as one of the most important figures in creating the IDF.

There's no one like him now...

Heh. I don't know anything about Frémont's Civil War service, but I can see from accounts of his later life (especially the short-lived Bear Flag Republic: "I've captured California for you!" "Give it BACK!") that he would be an effective rouser but not the world's greatest strategist (and more than a bit of a loose cannon.)

His wife, however, was an excellent strategist. The first Republican Presidential campaign owes the success it had (obviously not total, but quite substantial for a new party) in large part due to her orchestrations. And what's notable is that contemporary accounts describe people cheering for Frémont AND his wife, knowing that if he won, it was a two-fer.

That would be an interesting alternate history scenario...

Fremont was one of the generals who overstepped his authority by emancipating slaves. Lincoln said no, because he was extremely worried about keeping Kentucky neutral, Fremont said he wouldn't change his order, so Lincoln overrode his command and relieved him.

He was also known for running a pretty corrupt department...I just found this quote from one of the famous Blairs of Missouri, regarding the emancipation order:

“The truth is,” wrote Montgomery Blair to Charles Sumner, “with Frémont’s surroundings, the set of scoundrels who alone have control of him, this proclamation setting up the higher law was like a painted woman quoting Scripture.”

And interestingly, his firing led to Horace Greeley's open letter to Lincoln, which led to Lincoln's famous reply: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Fremont then came east and got beaten up by Stonewall Jackson during the Valley Campaign, and then retired...in 1864 he was the Radical Republican candidate for president, but struck a deal with Lincoln - Lincoln canned Montgomery Blair, and Fremont dropped out of the race...

I really don't know anything about the Bear Flag Republic, other than cursory one-paragraph background type stuff they toss into books about the Civil War...looks like a pretty interesting subject, though - thanks for bringing it up! And yeah, his wife definitely seems like a little spark plug!