>One could say "Afghanistan"
>
Yes, one could but one would be incorrect.
From wiki :

"The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda. 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia.[1] The others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt and Lebanon. The hijackers were organized into four teams, each led by a pilot-trained hijacker with three or four "muscle hijackers" who were trained to help subdue the pilots, passengers, and crew."

So, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon- do you see Afghanistan there?

Yes, they had training facilities there, but the people who ran them were mobile operatives from all over the world. Knocking out those facilities just moved them to other places.
We could have knocked them out and left. I was for that. Instead we tried to govern the place... DUMB!

I was on Long Island on 9/11 and I could see the towers going down. I had family members among the first responders. I was mad as hell, and wanted to strike back, but we needed cooler heads here.
Unfortunately, we didn't have them.


In fact, Osama Bin Laden was found in Pakistan and there are still al-Qaeda members there.
Should we attack Pakistan?

Some of them trained at a cell in Hamburg...
Hmm have to look into that.

It was commonly know that IRA members found solace and support in cities like Boston and NYC here in the US.
Should the UK have invaded Boston and NYC?

So, as you suggest, we attacked Afghanistan, slaughtered a bunch of innocent Afghans and the Taliban is as strong as ever. al-Qaeda dispersed and ISIS is if anything, more powerful than al-Qaeda was.

The Russians tried a war with the Taliban and got their clocks cleaned.
We knew better!

Walter.. you're a smart man.
The US was spending more that twice what the next ten countries spend on defense before the attacks and the attacks still happened.

So.. what do we do after the attacks? ... spend more money on defense!

Does that make sense to you?