[An Old Marine]

heroes can be celebrated even while we acknowledge that mistakes are always made in war

And this is precisely the point. During WW II the Marines also invaded the Peleliu Islands. Those islands were of absolutley no importance but cost the lives of 3,000 Marines. Then there was Dieppe where the Canadians lost 2,000 men, the "Lost Battalion" during WW I, or how about all those Union soldiers that charged Confederate positions at Cold Harbor during the Civil War

These were all stupid wasteful unnecessary battles. They were however based on the best judgement of leaders at the time. Mistakes happen but the lesson is that the courage of the men who fought those fights was undoubtable. And that courage is what wins the wars.

[Recon Dad]

Very good take on this. The only place I have found where war works is in a Clancy novel. People forget the Rangers climbing the cliffs into German machine guns on D-Day to take out the big guns that were not there.
Bravery is bravery no matter what or why.

[beaver fever]

A very good point. Battles are engaged according to what you know at the time not what you know forty years later.

If you asked Churchill whether Galipoli was a good idea in 1948 I'm sure he would have had reservations. But in 1914 with primitive reconnaissance and communications how could he have anticipated the result.

Mc Arthur's Pacific campaign was based on island hopping and avoiding well fortified enemy positions on the pacific islands.

But starting with Guadalcanal and onto Iwo Jima and Okinowawa the Japanese resistance became much more fierce and desperate.

The choices for landing fields and supply depots became more and more limited.

The Pacific campaign often suffers in comparison to the North African and Normandy invasions.

The fact is the Campaign for the Pacific was much more desperate and harder on the troops than has been given credit.