I'm not entirely convinced those two capabilities can be meaningfully differentiated when one tries to assess the overall quality of a leader.
Depends on the objective criteria of the discussion I guess. There is no questioning his quality as a human being (or lack thereof). He did lead his country out of ruin it's true. And after that right back into it. Can anyone think of a leader that was an evil SOB who was a good leader but in the end did more good than harm?
I know I'm drawing a blank.
All highly debatable but...Genghis Khan, Andrew Jackson, Stalin, Pope Julius II, Pope Alexander VI, and George Steinbrenner.
Stalin? No f-ing way. That guy was net loss all the way. The others... meh. But the last one.... good answer.