So in essence, you are agreeing that as long as there are no more attacks on US targets, the war on terror can be counted as a success?
No, but even if he was, it would certainly be a good measure to its success in the USA.
Are you now contending that "broadening the scope of islamic terrorism to include countries previously untroubled by it but at least distracting their attention from the US" counts as a victory?
If a burglar keeps robbing my shop, and then I put a lock on the door and he starts robbing another shop, by your definition all I did was "broaden the scope of the burglar to include shops previously untroubled by burglaries", so it did nothing positive; I should have left the store unlocked and continue to suffer the burglaries so as t not "broaden the scope of the burglar.
In reality, of course, putting a lock on the door is a victory for the store owner: it frustrated the burglar, forcing him to look for other, less important tagets in his eyes. It is at least partial victory: there is at least one shop, his preferred shop, that the burglar can't rob. The point now is to make the other shops burglar-proof as well.
Similarly, if the terrorists like the attack the USA and now cannot, then the war on terror won at least a partial victory: it denied them their most important target. Sure, now they'll try for less important targets if they can; but they have been at least partially defeated. The point now is to make sure that they are defeated elsewhere as well, until they have no targets left (at least ideally).
Can you see how this attitude would be percieved as some what inconsiderate, to say the least, of other nations in the world?
Indeed so; in the same way other women might worry that if a rapist's favorite victim has bought a gun, he might start raping other women; or that other shop owners might worry that improved security in the constantly-robbed shop next door might mean the robber might try to rob them as well.
But the only "inconsideration" here is that the USA refuses to continue to be the "designated victim". What right do other nations have to demand the USA remain in this position in the first place? Why right have they to demand the USA should remain the terrorists' favorite target just for other countries' temporary benefit?
If there is no right to demand a raped woman let herself be violated so that the rapes won't "spread" to others (and there isn't of course), there is no right to demand the USA let herself be attacked so that the attacks won't "spread" to others.
In addition, quite apart from all moral considerations, demanding the US remain a "designated victim" for terrorists out of "consideration" is amazingly short-sighted. Experience shows that fighting agression requires a united effort, and that thinking it is the "other guy's problem" means that it would quickly become your own. Quite the opposite of apart from pacifying the agressor, his success against someone else merely means he becomes stronger and more likely to attack you.
If only Chechoslovakia was more inconsiderate and did everything it could to drag England and France into the war in 1938! Hitler would likely have been defeated there and then, and all of history would have been different.
Your attitude--"How dare you try to defeat the agressor! As long as it attacks YOU, it might not have attack ME!"--is the epitome of cowardly, spineless appeasement. Not only is it morally despicable (despite your attempt to take the moral high ground), it is practicaly stupidity.
