I'm reading Rick Atkinson's Army at Dawn, and the book discusses debates within Allied command about where to land during Operation Torch. One side of the debate sought to land as close to Tunis as practically possible, to avoid the Germans using that port and its surrounding mountains as a defensible redoubt to fall back into, and saw the landings in Morocco as a waste of time and resources, as the forces there would need to march hundreds of miles to reach the front. the other side of the debate (which ended up winning) argued that the Moroccan landings were necessary to secure Allied supply lines through the Straits of Gibraltar, especially with the potential for the Germans to use Spain to attack Gibraltar, and that landing near Tunis was unacceptably risky and might result in that beachhead being counterattacked by superior German veterans and destroyed

In our world, the fears of the first camp came true - the Allies couldn't advance fast enough to capture Tunis before the Germans fell back into it, and forced the Allies into a monthslong siege and bloody attacks against heavily fortified mountains to break in. But on the other hand, especially the American component of torch was not really ready for combat in 1942, and the fight against the French and long march both secured allied supply lines and gave American troops and leaders crucial experience

Is there a historical consensus about whether the Moroccan landings during Torch were a mistake, and landings in Tunisia would have been better?