Was there another way perhaps working with the Northern Alliance rather than a full on ground invasion and occupation? Some have said it should have been over a lot quicker and still no one knows what happened to their leader Mullah Mohammed Omar?
Today the Taliban are back in charge so things have gone full circle as far as that was concerned.
Britannica say around 2,400 servicemen casualties and 20,000+ injured.
Which still strikes me as odd, considering all but one of the airline terrorist crew were Saudi Arabian nationals.
I have yet to hear an adequate explanation for that oddity.
Why didn't we have a really good look at that?
George W. Bush was garbage, both on the domestic front and as a war president.
So much blood and treasure lost, and for nothing. And it’s all on Bush. He set the tone. The presidents who followed him were just bit players.
I am told to hate the action, but not the man. So I’d better stop here before I break that rule.
Sounds like a loss, at least as presented.
My reaction on Sept 12, 2001 was: "OK, now we will finally seal the borders, and ban travel and immigration for anyone from at least 10-15 Muslim countries. That's obviously the easiest and cheapest anti-terror measure we could take."
The fact we effectively did the opposite tells me 9-11, and the narrative for the Afghan / Iraq wars were mostly lies.
Bkmk
My idea of a "full on ground invasion" was to kill however many it took for Afghanistan to surrender. That's how we used to win wars. Not by "winning over hearts and minds".