You also havn't answered the question, who is our Millitary preparing and planning to fight? Without agreement on that first, debate on specific weapons platforms is a little pointless.
Not generally, no. There is a reason the UK is abandoning the platform, after all, and that the Marines are the only branch to really embrace the Harrier. if they were as good as you seem to think, why isn't th eNavy looking at them for Carrier work (Sea harrier)? Answer, they're just not that good overall, it's a brilliant piece of UK engineering that compromises all the other combat-aspects of the platform.You really don't have an appreciation for the Harrier and the forward projection capabilities it provides.
I'm not sure what mission profile they're expected to fill where they would be a superior option to existing aircraft and helicopter platforms. A lack of runways is only a problem if A. your runways are destroyed, B. the Nation you're invading destroys theri own runways (or has none), or C. Helicopters are unavailable or ill sited to the task.
But again, that all depends on whom we're looking to fight and how. If it's occupation/overthrow work a la Libya/Syria/Afghanistan/Iraq, where there is no opposing air power of note, and no meaningful anti-aircraft opposition, then sure, they're probably fine. But so would Hellicopters, and Droens too for that matter, depending on the objective.
Trust me, I'm not the type to complain that we got a spefici job done cheaper. If the Harrier works, great. Just not a huge fan of what I think is more novelty than top-tier platform.
Edit: As a side note, it will be very dissapointing if this is the first sign that the F-35 Lighting II SVTOL is as much of a flop as it's sibling, the F-22 Raptor. The F-35 is supposed to fill the same role as the Harrier by 2014, not that far away. if teh Harrier is just a fill-in, great, especially for cheap. If it's a sign the F-35 is a pending failure, wow, what a bad era for U.S. millitary aircraft manufacture.