Again BS, gambling is half the battle. There are no sure bets in war. Inchon was and remains a classic example of a commander finding an enemies unknown linchpin and pulling it so the rest of the machine coems crashing down.Big Mac was a gambler, never a sign of considered and time-tested experience.
He didn't fail, that what you don't seem to get. Your taking him to task becuase he might have failed.Inchon, well, his troops managed to pull that off, daring move, certainly but if he'd failed in his gamble he'd have been pilloried as much as our Gordon Bennett was for runming away from Singapore.
You might get to the truth at some point. At no point until the Japanese out ran and then used up thier meager supplies did the Austrailians push the Japanese back. The Japanese withdrew under very light pressure back to the other side of the range. Then and only then, and with signifgant US gorund force support were the Japanese bested at Buna Gona.I have read documents in the Australian National Archives that prove Mac thought the Kokoda track or trail was more of a road that could easily take tanks and heavy artillary. Trouble was he spent most of his years in Australia in 3 and 5 star hotels and his direct understanding of the terrain was filtered and censored by the cotery of his senior staff who were loath to tell the great man anything approaching the truth that might upset him. Your apparent contention that he understood the terrible difficulties of the track just doen't pan out. One of the main reasons he sent Blamey up to PNG to dress down and then, reluctantly, sack Australian General Sydney Rowell was because Mac thought the Australians just weren't up to the task. Fact is, by the time Blamey got up there and had his unwanted confrontation with Rowell Australian forces had driven back the bulk of the *** threat.
Basically an ad hominem attack.Mac was an impatient man, unwilling to listen to bad news and obsessed to press on with his 'divine' quest to return to the Phillippines no matter what. I am more than willing to give a flawed man his dues, case in point is Blamey, a deeply flawed personality but with a far greater strategic understanding and a wealth of experience in large planning overviews of multi-faceted operations. (Plus hands-on battlefield command, although limited in quantity.) Mac turns up in PNG with his razor sharp creases in his new uniform, takes a quick look around and then scrurries back to Prime Minister Curtin, that afternoon with a literny of complaints about the fighting capabilities of Australian troops, their 'sub-standard' leadership and their logiistic shortcomings. Upshot of it is I just can't take this man seriously, although almost all he did was seriously wrong. He even lied about how tall he was. Heavens, what a lunatic. His photographers shot him 'up' as we say in the trade, that made him look taller than those around him. Blamey was 5'10" tall. General Eichelberger was a former basketball player and a good 6'2" tall. I have photos taken by Mac's staff that make Mac appear taller than him. Jack Gallaway, whom I've interviewed swore to me the most striking feature about him meeting Big Mac for the first time was how short the man was. No more than 5' 7.5" max. In photos taken by Australian press photographers Big Mac is glaring at them angrily because he knows he's standing next to Prime Minister Curtin and others who were taller than him. This is the personality profile of a true tactical and strategic genius? The debate continues.
I bet you even think Austraila won the first land battle vs the Japanese as well with the battle of Milne Bay. The rest of your view sure seems to point this way, with some sort of need to castigate Mac to soothe your own bruised self.