yet like all opinions, his may be authoritative for his specific place and time. One of the deeply frustrating things about Small Wars (and war in general) is that conditions vary greatly from foxhole to foxhole. If you look back at World War II, you'll find some bitterness among some Pacific veterans that the war in Europe drew so much more coverage, and within the Pacific subset there are those who remain convinced that MacArthur intentionally declared areas "secure" prematurely so that he could pull US troops out and rotate in Australian and New Zealand troops to "mop up," thus keeping perceived US casualties low.

And as Rob points out, your opinion of war is valid if for no other reason than as a civilian you sustain home front morale and support. If your opinion isn't informed or clear, then one of the pillars of any conflict is weak. War by its very nature is a multi-faceted thing...no one person can understand all aspects or faces of it. A combat soldier sees a different side than a medic, or an aid worker, or a citizen in a city that has seen conflict, or the person sitting at home trying to make sense of the many different sides he sees painted for him. One of the greatest challenges, and rewards, of a historian is trying to blend all those perspectives together into something resembling a whole so that future generations can understand (or have a chance to understand) what transpired during a particular fragment of time.

Not everyone who has been in war understands why it happened, or even what happened. In many cases all they see is their snapshot of it, and some never leave that snapshot. That also happens on the civilian side (witness the numerous anti-war types that seem to be desperately trying to link back to the 1960s). The complexity of it is perhaps beyond total human comprehension, but the more you know the more informed your personal decisions are, and the more you can help others frame their decisions.