Both things can be true

> progress depends on the unreasonable man

and

> unreasonable men start wars

But honestly it feels like such a useless nitpick. OP is talking about a useful mind-hack to increase your personal productivity and meaning, and you are applying it to how we should assess the morality of global leaders.

There's an important difference between:

> All progress depends upon the unreasonable man

and

> All actions by unreasonable men are progress

If all wibbles are wobbles it is not necessarily true that all wobbles are wibbles.

That's a mutual dependence then. It's still dependent on the unreasonable man.

I look at this in terms of variance: there are few ways to be reasonable, but many to be unreasonable. Many of the unreasonable ones lead nowhere, but a few lead to progress. That's similar to the concept of antifragility.

>It depends on the reasonable man who would put in the sweat and blood, but might be inspired or paid by the unreasonable man.

It's just the same thing as parent poster said, just with extra steps.

Ah yes, but no true unreasonable man puts sugar on his porridge.

(Ironically, the reference for this is an article titled "No true Scotsman starts a war" https://web.archive.org/web/20190105005853/http://www.atimes...)

> an unreasonable man invading another country right now.

I'd be more cautious equating reason with peace.

Wars are as often the conclusion of pure reason. Strategic advantage plus opportunity, plus a little too much game-theory can be the perfect ingredients for belligerence.

Reasonable men just follow orders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders