[_3ddw]

> 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%

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.

[q1w2]

Invading Afghanistan to destroy Al-Qaeda after 9/11 was probably the correct decision.

Staying there for 20 years, on the other hand, including after killing Osama Bin Laden on the other hand... That probably had more to do with having US soldiers on both the Chinese and Iranian borders. ...which is also probably why they both quietly supported the insurgency with Pakistan.

[mkr-hn]

And yet, still a bad leader.