Sure, we could adopt centrally planned goals and the will to carry them out (the goals are much easier than the carrying them out), but war, cold or hot seems to be just about the only means to generate that will.

In some sense that's okay. We shouldn't bypass democratic means easily. It's similar to how democratic societies have "state of emergency" powers and just as dangerous, and also why armed pacifism should be a good default for democratic society. You should not cause war, but if someone brings war to your door, you have a duty to your people to protect them and prevent occupation.

Important in this ideology is that flying a boeing into a building and killing 3000 people is not bringing war to your doorstep.

The thing that is bad about democracy as we experience it today, is that while in theory you get an equal choice at the ballot between different options, the sources of information you have to rely on to form an opinion to vote a certain way are not providing information on options at equivocal levels, or in an unbiased manner. It begs the question, is this really your vote, or did someone successfully convince you to vote in their interests thinking they are your own? Considering the massive incentives behind the ability to control voting in a democratic country, it should be expected various interests are working tirelessly to influence your voting behavior. It makes you wonder if the end product would be very different whether we bothered with the performance of elections or not. Certainly at least people believe they chose this government having cast the vote, so maybe that's the benefit of maintaining the system for elites: not to have the public shape government, but to have the public believe they have shaped government, and don't need to try and shape it through other means that might disrupt the order of things.