Who else thinks that Mark Clark's handling of the Italian Campaign sucked, for lack of a better word.
Actually, I just wanted to share a site that I stumbled on
         [url]http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/[/url]

I found it while trying to find out some stuff about Monte Cassino. There's a little bit here if you're interested

         [url]http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/romar/72-20.htm[/url]
Enjoy[:D]

It was a terrible waste of lives & resources.

British General R. L. G. Alexander deserves a lot of the blame along with Clark.

Notice Montgomery bailed out of the area quickly.

Problems in Italy were many.  Terrain was against us the entire campaign.  Constantly having to cross rivers as we worked up the penisula.  Mountain range down the spine of the country effectively split the theater in half.  Lower priority on supplies and equipment.  The Americans never had a strong commitment to Italy, it was mostly Churchill that pushed it.  Marshall wanted nothing to do with the Med, thaought it was a diversion from NW Europe, the "real" campaign in his view. Clark may not have been a military genius but its difficult to see how anyone else could have done better.  Much of the "A" team, EIsenhower, Monty, Tedder, left the Med for NW Europe shortly after Sicily.  

I agree that it was the "second team" in Italy, but how many times are you going to force crossing the Rapido in the same manner with the same failed results before the little light in your head turns on and you think " maybe we shouldn't be trying this here."
I'm not sure, but I think just the deaths were around 2000 for 3 failed attempts.
I remember watching a "History Channel" show with Monte Markham narrating, and he told a story about a Army Colonel giving new lieutenets a class during Viet Nam. He started a film on the Italian Campaign, stopped it and said, "Gentlemen, what you're about to see, is nothing short of murder!"
What else are you going to call it.