> His campaign attacked places that should have been bypassed and starved. <
Yep. For example, we really didn’t need to retake the Philippines. But we did anyway, mainly so MacArthur could fulfill his famous “I shall return” pledge to the Filipinos. It was a waste of resources and blood.
On the other hand, I read somewhere that MacArthur lost less men during the entire Pacific war than Eisenhower did at the Battle of the Bulge. The author’s point (if it’s true) was that MacArthur was careful to avoid casualties.
So I guess there’s that.
.
About 2 or 3 years ago I read and account of the Battle for Manila by Max Hastings I think. One of the most brutal books on W.W. II I ever read. The atrocities committed by the Japanese were so ming mind boggling that I had to read the book in stages so my mind could comprehend what happened. That might not have happened if the Philippines had been bypassed.
Best book I ever read on MacArthur was William Manchester’s American Caesar.
Why didn't we need to retake the Philippines??
You might want to ask the Filipinos that were being raped and murdered by the Japanese forces what they thought of being left behind enemy lines by the USA. It was unthinkable to leave them in Japanese hands.