I'd argue that zero troops and zero dollars in Afghanistan should be the goal. Afghanistan knows that if they try to raise up another Osama what will happen, so I would argue that what happens there, even if it's terrible, doesn't actually affect things in the US anymore.

We can invade a bunch of countries in South America, Africa, Asia, and Europe and possibly "improve" lives there, impose our will, while sucking money out of America ostensibly forever.

Or we can sanction human rights abusers, offer proper asylum, and if there are any real on the ground changes from within the country then possibly support in a similar way to support in Ukraine.

Once you invade a country you're committing to a certain responsibility to do right by it and the people living there. Either follow the Prime Directive or don't, but you can't just choose whimsically based on whatever is convenient in the moment. Blame the Bush admin if you really want to blame someone.

How does the prime directive apply when you are attacked directly.

I do agree that Bush deserves the blame for turning what should should have been a hunt down and destroy Al Qaeda mission into a sprawling invasion of various countries in the middle east

Afghanistan or the Taliban didn't attack the US – bin Laden did, who had no position in the Afghan government. Taliban refused to extradite Bin Laden to the US, and the US refused any compromise such as extradition to another country. All of that is a rather different thing than "they attacked us".

Regardless, Obama, Trump, and Biden had to deal with the situation as they found it, whether they agreed with the lead-up or not.

This is a very disingenuous argument. American troops aren't fighting an insurgency in Germany, Italy or Spain!