After reading this over, I don't entirely agree. How has the Middle East been treated by the U.S. in the last 100 years? This is the classical Ron Paul argument, that U.S. foreign policy creates terrorists. He asserts that every Islamic attack against the U.S. was a response to or effect of a U.S. attack.
The problem is that it started in 1786 with the Barbary Pirates attacking the U.S. and continued in 1801 and 1815. They were classic Islamic terrorists: harbored in North Africa and sanctioned by Islamic despots, these terrorists targetted civilians as "infidels", instilled terror with their cannons and scimitars, and were waging a "holy war" against the U.S. -- who they saw not only as infidels, but also as descendants from the Crusaders.
Did our statesmen try to appease and "talk to" the terrorists as our leaders today? Did they saw that terrorism is just a fact of life and we should learn to live with it?
Of course not. They took the necessary means to eradicate the threat as America has always done until recently. President Jefferson and General Washington built up a large navy aimed primarily at dealing with the pirates. Americans reaffirmed their commitment to democratic ideals at home -- talk of "national character" flourished and the Constitution was ratified.
Something else that is interesting to note is that we never declared war on the pirates (in part, I believe, because we didn't want to elevate their status). Jefferson authorized the use of force to hunt down these pirates and we treated them accordingly. They weren't given Constitutional protected. We didn't pull them over and arrest them on the high seas. We sank their ships.
Anyway, my point is that the Islamists were attacking the U.S. before it was even a country, let alone one with an interventionist foreign policy. The U.S. used to also be a country that would do whatever it took to defeat the enemy (see: Revolution, Barbary Wars, War of 1812, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish American War, WW1, WW2).
