Once again, King, you're sticking your nose into our politics. I don't do that with other countries represented by posters on this BB, other than when they choose to take cheap shots at the USA. Then I do indeed respond in kind, as I did in response to salopian's "sniping". You might want to consider the same policy.
"The wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" is your opinion, but it's not the opinion of everyone in this country (by a long shot) regardless of the results of our recent election. For example, the following came from former senator and governor Bob Kerrey (a Democrat)--and a member of the 9/11 Commission (thus somewhat more knowledgeable about terrorism than most politicians) and a Medal of Honor winner in Vietnam:
"The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the US in the 1990's and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically 'yes'".
"This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory." Wall Street Journal, May 2007. The primary battleground may now have shifted to Afghanistan, but other than that, I believe Senator Kerrey's assessment was quite accurate at the time he wrote it.
The "nuclear umbrella" likely prevented WWIII, in which a lot of American (and British and Canadian) boys would have died--as they did in WWII. Anyone who doesn't think the doctrine of "mutually assured destruction" prevented WWIII may need to read about half a century's worth of history.
And I know of nothing unconstitutional that's been done in the war on terror. FDR had German "saboteurs"--who had not even attempted to commit sabotage--tried by military tribunal (the same system Bush set up), then executed. All approved by the Supreme Court. I'm unaware of any constitutional change since the end of WWII that rendered military tribunals illegal. As for international law and the rights of prisoners, you might want to read the Geneva Convention. In order to qualify as a prisoner of war, an individual must bear arms openly, must wear a uniform, and must follow the laws of war. ALL OF THOSE must apply. Of course if we had categorized the Gitmo detainees as PW's, they could not have been subjected to "harsh interrogation techniques". On the other hand, a PW doesn't go home until the war is over, so it might not have been such a good thing for them.
