I didn't read the article (I don't go to the LA Times), but from the first paragraph I thought his point was goint to be that in every war there are serious, and tragic, mistakes that result in many casualties. As a result, all of the attention of supposed errors by our military in taking control of Iraq are irrelevant, and as destructive as it would have been to second-guess Iwo Jima, hold hearings, and otherwise disrupt the military during wartime.
Taken as a whole, the U.S. island hoping strategy saved the lives of countless soldiers and marines. It left seasoned Japanese troops cut off and isolated without anyone to shoot their shiny bullets at. But of course the article could not give any credit.
The entire thrust of the article is wrong as are the details.