It was not a mistake to go to Afghanistan post 9/11, but 9/11 could have been avoided many times over, and that's where the true tragedy exists. Going into Iraq was the one of the biggest failures of US policy of all time, buy that's another topic. Remember, he's offering an opinion as a historian which by its nature is retrospective. He's also not a military SME or intelligence expert, or historian focused on Islamic terrorism and the long list of attacks by them on the US leading up to 9/11 etc.,(reply>), @Jozo Zovko You're very generous in assuming that future generations will pay attention or seek the lessons we are beginning to understand.,(reply>), @Hanzala Omar <br>But in all the info I’ve ever come across, the US did supply evidence, but it was usual deemed unacceptable. <br><br>Mullah Omar for example blamed the 1998 embassy bombings on Hussein in Iraq, and said UBL was not involved, and that the U.S. should attack Ahmad Shah Massoud due to his connections with Iran. <br><br>They also said they’d put him away somewhere in Kandahar to keep a closer eye on him, but it’s obvious only a few years later the 9/11 attacks happened. Maybe KSM etc were already on their way with the attack plan, but I’m not sure about the whole length of time for that mission’s schedule.<br>In the end, the IEA really didn’t seem honest in my opinion. All the mistakes made on all sides seem so transparent in hindsight though. Much to be learned for future generations.,(reply>), @Jozo Zovko There's no way IEA would have handed over someone who pledged allegiance to the Emir without a judicial oversight. IEA would have collapsed if they did. The fighters of IEA have no monetary interest, they fight for Shar'ia and if the Emir decided to violate the Principles of Shar'ia, they'd have denounced him.<br>The outcome, provided US had concrete evidence, would have been execution for mass murder or treason which is why OIC was asked to oversee the trial in a third country (possibly Saudi or Qatar). Under their laws if UBL carried out the attacks he would have violated the agreement US made with the OIC meaning it amounts to treason.,(reply>), @Hanzala Omar <br>Oh please don’t go assuming anything. The problem with some idea of a greater ulema council and clerical trial for past actions is that the outcome isn’t certain. Certainty most likely was what would have been most necessary early on. The actions of al Qaeda are justified in some clerical interpretations. In all honesty and in hindsight, if the IEA arrested UBL and AAZ and just handed them over to some western body in 1998, all of this mess most probably would have been completely averted, and they would have gained greater legitimacy in the eyes of more parts of the world at a very early time for the IEA. But yes, the US and all nations should take such peaceful offerings more openly and seriously when brought in the future.,(reply>), It's funny how most ya lot are not aware of the fact the IEA offered to try Bin Laden in a third country overseen by the OIC and US refused it.