SUD, I would have to disagree with you. I think that Rommel was a much more competent General than you make him out to be. First Rommel was not that reckless; he did plan his campaigns. He often analyzed battles and then shared his thoughts with his staff. Unlike those who have portrayed him as a bold and mindless adventurer, the men of the Afrika Korps knew him as a cool, steady commander.
You also talk about supply lines, which you believe Rommel was responsible for. However, Rommel was well aware of problem deriving from an extended maritime supply line that was vulnerable to airstrikes. He worried about the situation continually, but could do little to stop the ceaseless Allied air attacks from Malta and elsewhere (after playing Campaign for North Africa, you realize how much a burden supply lines were for the Axis). Rather than allow himself to become stymied by the lack of adequate supplies, Rommel choose to use what little materiel he had to go on the offensive. While the decision to act swiftly and decisively occasionally resulted in defeat, more often than not it translated into victory after victory. If there is any blame, it is better aimed at Rommel’s superiors who regarded North Africa as more of a secondary theater and rarely fullfilled Rommel’s demands for supplies and reinforcements.
As you mentioned before, Rommel often had to go up against superior numbers, and with the odds he oftened faced, even a “adequate” general like Rommel might not fared so well against “ignorant” British commanders. To make matters worse, Rommel did not always have the best weapons or equipment. In fact, the British often had superior tanks and a lot more of it. Rommel was able to concentrate on one enemy formation, neutralize it, and move on.
Now it’s true that he made mistakes, but he learned quickly from them and rationally applied principles that often brought success against a numerically superior, better equipped army enemy.