Earlier quoted context omitted.
“The alternative to occupation would be a more complete destruction of the country.” You seem to be conflating a theocratic regime being in charge with the bloodshed of war, or as you call it, occupation. A great many people died and were horribly injured throughout the 20 year war. But you think the wrong regime would have been a “more complete destruction?”
So the way I see it, there no way we can tolerate the Taliban facilitating attacks on US soil. So after the initial invasion and defeat of Taliban forces, what is the correct move? Occupation didn’t work, but leaving after overthrowing the theocracy just allows the theocracy to reform. It seems to me that a more thorough elimination of the remaining Taliban is the only other option here. I am legitimately asking what…
I think this is a stupid objective, however. It would be astronomically expensive, it would've cost untold amounts of blood, and "doing Colonialism" in the 21st century is frowned upon for good reason. What would we gain? What would the Afghans gain? Money from mineral extraction? In the end, we did psuedo-colonialism anyway, and it got us nothing but dead Americans and dead Afghans.