Let’s start here: Should President Bush have sent forces to Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks? Were the American lives lost in the Korean War in vain? WW2? Do the tactics used or not used by our leaders determine the righteousness of the strategic cause?
I'll bite 'cause I feel very strongly about it.
1. Yes.
2. BUT Bush shouldn't have caved to pressure to go 'regular'; it should have remained SOCOM with air support. We didn't even need the 'coalition'; ISAF...what a joke. It brought us ER-ROE, ya know. (absolutely no offense to the Brits et al on the ground)
(Pakistan & CIA drones are a whole other discussion.)
We're now repeating history. How pathetic is that?
IMHO, not having these hard conversations permit it to happen again. After all, Bama's now in-process routing out Generals & appointing those that will follow his bidding...
Yes, preferably with a scorched-earth policy.
Were the American lives lost in the Korean War in vain?
I honestly don't know enough about that war to pontificate in any meaningful way.
WW2?
Absolutely. There's no question we were fighting pure evil on both fronts, and we weren't playing nice with either side like we do now.
Do the tactics used or not used by our leaders determine the righteousness of the strategic cause?
Do the ends justify the means? No. Go in to destroy the enemy. Use diplomacy and rebuilding organizations where necessary, realize when/if they can be used (hint: it won't work in Muslim countries).