"I think you're on the wrong lines wrt to Afghanistan. It had full international support from the get go."

No, it didn't have "full international support from the get go". NATO first got involved in terms managing and coordination about year or so after the invasion and later got involved in terms of using NATO troops [and that is still sort of working itself out- mainly having to do with building the logistic capablity- at least that is what is given as a reason for slow response]. If you mean some kind UN resolution indicating "full international support" not I'm not sure there is anything in that regard. Now I don't know if there is any country which is offically opposed to it, but you could say the same about Iraq.

The current higher international acceptance regarding Aghanistan could be due it's leadership which was first appointed [in a rather quick and efficent fashion] and then elected by the people of Afghanistan, and the previous taiban leadership not being as "established/accepted", and then you simply have the length of time: Afghanistan invasion occurred 5 year ago, Iraq almost 4 years ago- and political much further ahead because this process of choosing leadership was used.

Another aspect relating to this is the large number of "influential" people "bought off" in the Oil for Food program and the resistance they brought to the matter- Afghanistan didn't have that liability [there was the bit about the pipeline- but that wasn't a real issue [something "influential" people were currently recieving millions of dollars from]