In insanely general terms I believe that:
- In war it is usually right to commit troops, ground or otherwise,
- Regrettably, some troops will die, this should be expected and is ok,
- You do the best you can with the limited information you have,
- Second-guessing of chosen tactics is often a cheap shot, easily taken by someone who has the advantage of knowing how things came out (while the commanders who chose the tactics, did not),

That being said, the mystery critics raise two good points that we might benefit from adopting:
1) Why the hurry to assault? I have no answer to this question and would be interested in hearing what Franks has to say.

2) Do we need to reexamine the fire support provided on "rescue" type missions. Isn't this a no-brainer? Or was there a logistical reason why this was not done better in this case? I don't know. Worth talking about, though.

A separate issue raised seemed to be the cordon of troops preventing the badguys from slipping away. I applaud our efforts. I have always thought that we were doing a lousy job of preventing the "melt away" effect. Though I personally feel a bit uncomfortable when it's stated that we are still largely leaving this to our "US-trained" allies.

Good and interesting article. Thanks, Tom!