Were the wars worth it? A decade later with some reflection, what do you think?

--as of 2012 we have spent 4 trillion on both wars

--We have spent $791 billion on homeland security since 9/11

--46,000+ Wounded and Dead US Soldiers from both wars combined

--air travel increases with added expensive and delays due to security

--at least 150,000 Iraq civilians dead (some accounts are up to 1 million) due to related war deaths (direct casualties or from war related pestilence).

--prisoners obtained in Guantanamo Bay indefinitely

--world perception of the US violating Geneva Treaty for prisoner abuse and torture and renditions

--US economy saddled with huge defecits to pay for the wars being a part of the recession and unemployment

--displaced Iraqis that fled Iraq (2006 alone saw a exodus of 1.6 million leaving every month)

I'll stop there. My point is was it worth it for 3000 deaths on 9/11? Not to be cold because it was a huge tragedy but was the cost of the revenge and retribution worth it? Would it have actually been smarter to absorb the tragedy and move on and secure the homeland alone (and maybe just have a few airstrikes) but not invade two nations?

I expect a few may say that we did not invade Iraq because of 9/11 but at the time the Bush administration clearly connected al-Quaeda to Saddam Hussein (Cheney is on record of saying Hussein harbored and financially supported the terrorist group). Bush also stated the connection in several press conferences. I also point to the polls of Americans at the time that believed there was a connection. The false 9/11 connection was very much a selling point to American before we invaded.

Finally, if you once supported the wars but now have changed your mind in the execution of the wars what would you have wanted done in hindsight? I personally think our approach has been terribly wrong and this idea of no compromise means the only way to win means total destruction (which is impossible) or endless war.... I think we have been unrealistic and have gone after a wasp with a bazooka. The US saw terrorism in the 19th century with the plains Indians, we made treaties with tribes that decimated settlers, kidnapped women and girls, and we had full knowledge of that. What was the difference between a 19th American leader and a 20th century American leader? One compromised for peace. What were the results of the two very differing American leaders? We don't look at the 19th century military leaders compromising with the Indians as cowards but today we criticize anyone who speaks to compromise. Is that attitude prolonging a endless and unwinnable war?

**** this question is not intended for 9/11 conspiracists to respond (I can't stop it of course but I really don't believe the conspiracy so answers about conspiracies would be ignored by me).