>>One could say "Afghanistan"

>Yes, one could but one would be incorrect.

I tend to agree, however that is what a lot of people will coin.

SNIP

>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?

As I responded to Marcia, it is not always about the war/battle itself. It is about getting rid off certain powers and get new puppets in place. The US very well knew that when they leave the Taliban would fight back, just as the Dutch knew that when they'd leave Kunduz it will get a prey again for the Taliban sooner than later.

The Dutch however had to show the world that after the Sbrenica debacle, they are a very professional army that is capable of doing a good job. For the US al-Qaida and the Taliban was a good excuse to gain influence in the region, just like it did in Iraq.

In short it is not always about getting a military victory, but about gains on the geopolitical map. Sometimes even for personal glory (on might argue GWB administration on WMD)

That is not to say, blunders are not being made, but the effects are far less clear than military victory. Sometimes we can only guess.

At the time of the 2nd Iraqi war, it was coined that an important reason to attack Saddam was because he wanted to get rid of the US dollar and favour the Euro as the trading currency (for oil). Now that might seem unimportant to you, but if that would have a cascading effect to other countries (e.g. Iran, Venezuela), it could mean big, big trouble for the US. The US dollar being the worlds reserve currency has a very distinct economic advantage as for exporting inflation. It allows the US to go into great depth without the destructive forces of inflation.

The message from the intervention was clear: Listen to us, or else we bring democracy :)

The US cannot survive its economic status without protecting its assets outside of the US. You will be economically destroyed if do. If the US will lose the US dollar as the reserve currency, the US will go broke just as Russia did in the 90-ties. The US might be able to decrease its dependency on oil out of the middle east, but Europe would not. See what is happening in between Ukraine and Russia. Do you think this really is a dispute of geographical nature? Of course not, it is economic and geopolitics.