Consider this. Any president that didn't go into Afghanistan after 9/11 would've been hung from a yardarm. It wasn't rocket science to make that move, only political reality.

You're right, of course, but there's a big difference between attacking a nation and committing yourself to regime change and rebuilding. While I'm certain a President Gore would have attacked Afghanistan, there's a good chance, given previous war tactics during the Clinton years, that he would have done a largely aerial campaign against terror bases, and possibly the Taliban government. Throwing thousands of troops onto the the ground to construct a democracy? Maybe. Maybe not.

What's happening in Bosnia lately? Is "success" in a war simply the lack of casualties?