Giving the Public a Say on Afghanistan- good or bad idea?

After the library session we had in class, I came across this article from politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28058.html), which discussed the idea that the public should have a say on what goes on in Afghanistan, or at least be able to know what the thought processes are of those in leadership positions. I beg to differ. No matter who is president, I think that they reserve the right to decide on protocol in private. It should not be a mandate from the press or the general public that their decisions should be publicized. This would only create chaos, especially from the majority of the public who is uneducated in whatever sphere the topic of discussion is from. For example, the situation in Afghanistan is very complex. I'm not condoning what we've done in the Middle East, but I'm saying that for the protection of our national security, it would be in our best interests to keep the decision making of the president and other leaders under-wraps until final decisions are made. I realize that this may not necessarily lead to great transparency over our government, but sometimes you have to do what needs to be done, and telling the public what is going on might create an uproar for something that could be taken care of quietly. The author of the article, Bob Franken, should have just stopped after his sentence, "Secrecy is necessary to maintain national security, intelligence sources and the operational safety of those on the battleground", instead of pushing further to say that "we should all have a seat at that Situation Room table".