Keith
You are still frantically running around defending Haig in order to show that the War was well led
Kitchener was an incompetent butcher, French was a murderous embarrassment and Haig was all things to whoever happened to experience his leadership - his main claim-to-fame was the ruthless way he sent so many man to their deaths in order to win yards of useless mud - aof all of them he ws probably the best of a bad bunch - from your latest link:

"Conclusion
There is no evidence of a consensus about the reputation of Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. By some he is greatly admired as a Commander-in-Chief bringing about victory in very difficult circumstances whilst having been neither particularly well served by the British politicians of the day, nor, frequently, by his Allied Commanders. Others are equally dismissive considering him to something of a dilettante aristocrat, overly favoured by royal patronage, and with scant concern, or care, for the troops under his command.
No doubt, DH's notoriously poor communication skills and deliberate remoteness, allied with the privations imposed on his troops by the ill-understood evolution of the stalemate of four years of increasingly technological trench-war, made it difficult for him to come to some kind of rapport with his huge army."

None of which gets us any nearer to your mythical "consensus"
Jim Carroll