Ya but Bush fucks things up on a regular basis.
Since these were all fundamental to the success of any WW2 general (see the exploits of Slim in Burma for someone who really, really understood logistics and was phenomenally successful as a result), anyone lacking them cannot be considered a great general.
As for Bush, he’s highly successful as a politician but I have grave reservations about his ability as a statesman. I am less and less convinced over time that he actually has a plan for Iraq.
Ill just say one more thing and then if we want to continue the bush discussion we can do is somewhere else. The only smart thing ive seen him do about Iraq lately is not give a time table on the pull out. It would be nice to have one but would only strenghten the insurgency. Glad he’s not so stupid. However I seriously doubt that he has some kind of withdrawal plan. Lets hope its better than “we stay and shoot untill they dont be coming no more”
I think Rommel was better because of his ability to show up anywhere kept Monty guessing and as we know the element of surprise is a tactical advantage
As for Bush…Here i set cheeks a flexin,givin birth to another Texan
Monty could bang out the surprises when he needed to as well - El Alemain and Arnhem both had a fair element of surprise to them.
With bush it may be the case of;
Every one may think you’re an idiot, why open your mouth and prove it! 
BDL good point
Monty could bang out the surprises when he needed to as well - El Alemain and Arnhem both had a fair element of surprise to them.
So back to the original question. Are we saying that Monty is the better general?
Well I think that Monty beat Rommel every time they met. Is that a good judge of who used their tools better?