IIRC, I was dubious of GWB's war in Afghanistan. Memories of Vietnam and the "Man Who Would Be King", etc. were big in my mind. But the surge of feeling after 9/11, which I shared to some extent, meant it was easy to get caught up in enthusiasm over the easy triumph over Al Qaeda and the Taliban. That enthusiasm, plus the support of some writers whose names escape me now, led me to very reluctant support of the Iraq.venture, though the skeptical articles in the Post also weighted heavily. I regret I wasn't blogging then, so I'd have a written record against which to compare my memories.
Later my reservations on Afghanistan were raised by various books and articles, but there was never a clear decision point where politicians debated the issues. And there was never a clear course, a way to reconcile my liberal desires for nation-building and women's rights and my doubts over the effectiveness of our strategies.
Now the Post is publishing the Afghanistan equivalent of the Pentagon Papers, documents from a "lessons learned" exercise by the special IG for the war.
My bottom line, not having read the whole series yet, is this: most of the criticisms were valid, but it's one-sided, no answer to the question: "what was the alternative?"
I can only add this perspective: looking at Vietnam today and the status of US-Vietnam relations, the war didn't have lasting bad effects at the global level. When you consider the deaths and injuries, particularly of Vietnamese, and destruction resulting from the 1945-75 conflict you have to deplore it.