I wrote a different comment, then re-read your comment above, and deleted my original reply.
All I can say is that I thought about Desert Storm when I wrote my original comment. I may have been 7 or whatever, but I did grow up in the period after Desert Storm and I remember clearly how infallible American military might was thought to be in popular opinion.
> That's probably what Colin Powell was counting on.
God knows. Why would you distance Powell from the other "generals would never tell the truth"? I'm not sure I would.
> 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.
I was 17 when we invaded Afghanistan and 19 when we invaded Iraq. Through the lead-up to both of those conflicts I remember watching scores of demonstrators marching outside the White House, chanting slogans against the wars. What did they know that Colin Powell did not?
All I can say is that I thought about Desert Storm when I wrote my original comment. I may have been 7 or whatever, but I did grow up in the period after Desert Storm and I remember clearly how infallible American military might was thought to be in popular opinion.
> That's probably what Colin Powell was counting on.
God knows. Why would you distance Powell from the other "generals would never tell the truth"? I'm not sure I would.