|
|
|
|
|
|
by koheripbal
1706 days ago
|
|
|
The invasion of Afghanistan should not be lumped in with Iraq. The first had broad public support in both parties and in the public. ... over 90%. As well as support from NATO, the EU, and many other nations as it was an operation to get Osama Bin Laden after 9/11. The invasion of Iraq was far more controversial and motivated by oil politics. They are completely different animals. |
|
|
> The first had broad public support in both parties and in the public. ... over 90%
Certainly. But that is exactly what leaders are for: Good leaders worth mourning transform knowledge and sage wisdom into actions that should sometimes run counter to popular public will, and do not always bow under public pressure. Good leaders guide their people away from tragic error, at times when popular opinion would lead the population into the abyss, like it did in 2001.
If your conception of leadership is people who at all times merely execute the public will, then what you have are actually automata. Why bother with human leaders at all, then? We could just automate government to follow public opinion based on mass polling.