General reply to posts by Freeborn and Wrabbit2000,
I understand the isolationist outlook.
Many whites in SA, for example, also felt betrayed by the US after the Angolan War (they first encouraged it and then never pitched up) and the sudden
support for a Marxist, erstwhile terrorist organization (the ANC was only taken off the US terror list in 2008), and deep questions on whether wasting
their youths conscripted into fighting Marxism in the context of a global Cold War was really worth it.
But we're not talking about invading entire countries here.
Besides that the struggle against violent Islamism has been going for over a decade.
And yes, there have been successes and saved lives.
The urban terror campaign in SA was stopped in the late 1990s.
en.wikipedia.org...
We had a football World Cup in 2010 without incident in SA (although bombs that murdered 74 soccer fans were detonated in Uganda).
en.wikipedia.org...
The war on terror is not a conventional war.
OK, one could capitulate and ask these extremist groups what they really want.
Some would say release the political prisoners and get out of the "House of Islam".
But I'm not so sure.
Listening to some Islamist preachers on their brainwashing recruitment clips, it appears that many will not rest until the black flag is flying over
every capital, including Washington.
Many people across the globe don't want to see that day.
Just a little help here and there will suffice in countries that are still stable.
Instead, there's already a tit-for-tat souring over South African and British visas, and it's all because some Islamist terrorists have used SA
passports.
That's just the indirect damage to relations these people cause.
What we also don't need is gung-ho "machine-gun preachers" and extremist Christian missionaries from the US to raise further tensions, especially in
traditional Muslim regions.
On the other hand, the daily killing of Christians by Islamist groups might understandably lead to unofficial interventions.
I'm not sure that's desirable either.
Nevertheless, if the US (or say France or the UK) know where a sleeper cell operates, for example, and the host country is unable or unwilling to take
care of it efficiently, then an operation against those terrorists would be appropriate to save lives and investments.
edit on 6-10-2013 by
halfoldman because: (no reason given)