Sympathy for the Martians? A Writer’s Look at H.G.Wells ’ classic novel, the War of the Worlds

H. G. Wells' novel War of the Worlds is a deceptively simple story of a complacent society facing an invasion for which they were utterly unprepared. Is this a tale akin to the Fall of Rome, the society is blind to its own corruption and ripe for destruction? Is this the story of a society too civilized to recognize approaching danger? Who is meant to have the readers' sympathy?
One way to try and figure that out is to look at the narrator and the characters he meets. They are nameless through most if not all of the novel. Any character named is only named once. Most writers are careful to refer to characters by name so as not to confuse the readers. What is repeated is not the name, but the occupation. The narrator refers to the artilleryman, the cleric, the Martians, and even his brother is the doctor. Only Ogilvy, the astronomer, retains his name and identity. Perhaps Wells was saying they could have been anyone, even the reader or someone the reader knows. So, is Wells setting an "us against them" scenario? Are the readers supposed to 'root for the home team' as it were?
If so, then why start the novel with the Martian plight? Wells explains that the Martians need to find a new place to live before their planet can no longer sustain life. He even restates the issue several times, making it clear to the reader that the Martians must invade if they want to survive. If that wasn't enough to sway the reader, the narrator notes the invasion of Tasmania happened for similar reasons. How can one blame a race that is only doing what we have done? Aren't the Martians a more sophisticated evolved version of us?
If so, then why are they bug-eyed monsters? How many readers are willing or able to identify with a grotesque monster? Why do the Martians shoot first? Why do they kill women, children, or animals (all signs of villainy)? Why have they left the green fields of England red with blood and alien grass? Wells does not shy away from depicting the casual violence of the alien conquerors. Does he want us to sympathize with them, or hate them? Shouldn't the reader support anyone who wants to take up arms against an unfeeling enemy?
How can we support characters whose best acts are passive? This is part of the dilemma Wells sets in this novel. The narrator spends most of the novel running or hiding; none of his actions make a difference in regards to the invasion. When the narrator does act, it is to borrow and return an escape cart, beat a curate senseless because he is risking exposure, and start to dig a tunnel. The cart is essentially a plot device and is overlooked. By the time the narrator begins the beating, the reader does not blame him for what he does; the curate is clearly insane and his religious mania only leads to him becoming a Martian entrée. Digging the tunnel seems proactive only until the narrator and reader understand it is a half-baked fantasy the artilleryman thought of when he was bored.
Who saves humanity? Is it the narrator's physician brother? No, he is saving individuals. Has Ogilvy found a solution? No, Ogilvy has found more Martians waiting to invade. The Martians are not killed by a weapon, but by a cold germ. Wells shows the story through the eyes of a man who is rational but passive, which sees both sides of the issue, and has sympathy for all involved. As a writer, I note the way Wells slants the story by creating distance through the narrator. His narrator misses most of the immediate action, avoiding the emotional impact. If I want my reader to have divided loyalties, I need to insert distance or time between the event and the reader. As Wells did, I need to show more aftermath then battle.
To answer the main question, I have been fighting three separate viruses for more than two weeks, so at the moment my sympathy is for the Martians.