I really don't see that much difference in our positions, more in degree than in kind. Perhaps if I rephrased my view on things... I would use as a model for the War on Terror, the War on Drugs. Sure, there are differences, among them, we're not making much progress in that one either, but that may just be because there is a huge market for drugs in this country and no market for terrorism. But most of the other elements are in place. In both, brutal criminal elements deal in death and extortion, suborn governments, wage war against constitued authorities with poor humanitarian records of their own, and international boundaries and corrupt sovereign governments complicate the issue. The driving force is not religious fanaticism, but pure greed:
different in nature but similar in results.

We combat them by providing money and technical aid as well as military support and training for friendly forces. We also deny these inducements to those governments which do not cooperate, and lean on them in various other ways. We don't invade and occupy countries with drug lords or nuke their coca fields, but the threat is certainly there if it is absolutely necessary (remember Panama?). We also conduct interdiction and surveillance and infiltration of the bad guys. Does this constitute meddling in their affairs? Sure it does, but selling our kids junk and flying airliners into our office buildings constitute meddling too. We're a damn superpower, we need to kick ass and take names if we have to, but we should also be ready to be magnanimous and generous with those who cooperate with us. And to meet those who are doing their best halfway.

There is a middle way between doing nothing at all and shooting ourselves repeatedly in the foot.