No, not "of course"
Gallipoli HAD the potential to dramatically shorten WW1. Whilst it became a failure the actual plan was audacious and could have opened a new front in the war against a stretched enemy whilst also supporting the Russians who were already getting nervous about their revolutionaries.
That is true, yes (though there are problems with audacity), but the way it was handled (by Churchill and others) did contribute to its failure.
Admittedly, that was hardly unusual for the time, but, IMHO. that's very little excuse. Having a hissy fit and going off to drink in a hotel when things turn bad, or simply drinking on duty in general has long been recognised as serious offences for the lower ranks, there's no excuse for thinking it is acceptable for the important people.
As for Coronel, not sure how that one is Chruchill's fault.
The commander of the force in question new his forces weren't powerful enough to defeat the enemy, but Churchill demanded he attack with what he had anyway, with predictable results.
