I could have told you that on 9/12.
In fact I did tell people that, saying going to war is not the solution,
but at the time people were thinking like animals. All they could see was "red" and revenge.
How very astute of you.
I'm sorry to say, but it's not possible to prove something's validity through the failure of your opposition. Yes, it's a start, but as the history of rulers and political systems of the 20th century can attest, it's also a good way to bring a bitter end to things: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and many others said "their ways don't work, follow me" and there was even more suffering than under the previous rule.
The reality is that there are many other ways in which those wars could have been fought - indeed, there are many ways which many people wanted to see those wars fought which never occurred. The actual people who were "thinking like animals" wanted to carpet bomb their countries and utterly destroy them. Between them and your irrationally passive approach, we came up with what we got.
As for the 9/11 bombers, people seem to forget that it was diversity and open-minded political correctness which brought them here. We've known since the 1970s that their type (affluent Arabic Muslim men) are the stereotype for Islamic terrorism, yet we continued to let them in.
It's more complex than just "better locks"; significantly more so. I and most sane people would agree that is a necessary first step, but it's one step of many.
Proactively ruling out retributive attacks against enemies is just as, if not more, foolish than throwing an inappropriate level of force at a problem. But just because that level of force is ineffective does not mean that force was not the solution you were looking for.
