You sir win a free internet. This is the crux of the issue with regards to terror. Our policies against terrorist organizations fail because we try to engage them in conventional wars where American technological superiority, combat training, and aerial warfare can be leveraged to our advantage. Being radical, decentralized, asymmetrical actors, the best that the US military (and those of other Western powers) has to offer, conventional "drop troops, caputure cities" approach that seems to dominate strategic thought throughout the West, is completely ineffective against these groups. Countries that try get sucked into a no-win situation. Terrorist plans are such that, even if attacks fail, the terrorists still win. With the United States (or other countries), every time we don't win we lose. After we lose enough, people begin to wonder why we're bothering with such nonsense, and some pressure is taken off of terrorists as the public morale no longer supports overt military action against terrorists. Counterterrorist operations are rather hit or miss simply because no government agency has a crystal ball, I don't care how much leaders boast about their intelligence capabilities.
What Americans (and other countries) need to do is abandon any notion that this problem can be blown away with air strikes and focus on the common motivations behind terrorist group support. We don't even have to defeat the terrorists themselves; merely invalidate the cause they sell to certain consitutents. and demographics. In both my under grad and grad research in this issue, I've found that these groups draw support from local poplations with certain political needs that the established regime does not satisfy. Things like good roads to travel across, easy access to water, stability so that the population's economy can grow: basic facets of what we call "National Security," in other words. Places like Afghanistan serves as a haven for many terrorist organizations because the population supports them. The population supports them because they believe these organizations are the answer to their problems. Think of this in terms of the Tea Party. When the Tea Party started, they promised to make certain things better and improve the quality of life, and some people actually believed it. It's no different with terrorists, insurgents, or Fourth Generation Wars: only in these cases, people are led to believe that killing members of a certain commuity or nationality will make their lives better.
To defeat such an enemy, you must remove his support. To do this, you must address the domestic crises that compel people to put their faith in such violent organizations. Someone, whether it is the United States, the UN, Bengion or Ylisse, must help develop the infrastructure and public works projects to show supporters of these organizations that they don't need to kill people to make their lives better. They just need help setting up a framework that will satisfy their political needs. I think it would also be beneficial if people abandoned the idea that the United States should never experience another terrorist attack. I understand 9/11 was a traumatic experience that still hurts for many throughout this nation, but no intelligence agency or national defense program is capable of the flawless powers of prediction that is necessary to intercept every attack that could ever happen. Pressuring the government to do so may dramatically reduce its capacity to identify credible threats and act upon those threats quickly, as policymakers, in response to the public's need for a guarantee of perfect safety, pushes an overencumbered intelligence community to identfy and prevent every possible bump in the road of life.
My opinion, for what its worth.