I don't think the end justifies the means? After all what would have victory meant if you had lost all that you were fighting for in the beginning. I agree with Imladris though, using Frodo and Sam was pure strategy. Whether you call it cowardice or not is purely opinionistic. After all you can regard some of the most cunning strategies in all of history as cowardly. Blitzkrieg for example did not rely on attacking an enemy head-on by rather their flanks and targets of opportunity. Just because its a totally different theater of war does not matter. Vietnam (Guerilla warfare) also comes to mind. Your analogy is based on a duel Telchar, which was not the case in Middle Earth. it was the WAR of the Ring.
Although Lord of Angmar when you say
Quote:
|
it was because their enemy Sauron had been so treacherous and deceptive that it was necessary to counter
|
I don't quite understand. Sure Sauron was treacherous in the First and Second age but he was not overly treacherous in the Third. After all, all the Free Peoples by then knew who their enemy was, it was hardly possible to pit them against each other in the face of the greater evil.