donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
I don't think it's reasonable to not accept that Foley was beheaded by ISIS (though yeah, I've had the displeasure of watching a few Taliban execution videos which leaked out, and they're very different, but people and organizations are all different, so...), but it's difficult to justify more deaths (including Americans) to fight something which can't die (or at least, something which the USG has shown it can't or won't kill). We fought the Taliban. Their numbers were estimated at ~45,000 when we went in. Now, they're estimated to be 60,000 strong and growing (AFTER killing tens of thousands of 'em), and in the meantime, our thirst for justice has led to >3,000 ISAF deaths, >10,000 Afghan National Security deaths, and ~20,000 civilian/contractor deaths.
Moreover, very frankly, meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost the USG $4-6T, money which could've been spent elsewhere, certainly including life-saving sectors desperate for funding. In low-development countries, a life can be saved for ~$400-2,000. In the US - and this is mostly out of my ass - maybe $40,000 for someone who could be cured of something but isn't because they can't pay for it, or deaths of crimes brought by poverty. -So, outside the ~2,600 American deaths, we used enough money to've effectively eradicated poor healthcare and famine in third- and second-world countries, or basically every American dying of a death which could've been prevented by having more wealth (for years if incurable).
I mean - can you just imagine how much better off everyone would be if we simply donated $1T in material aid to Afghanistan (~20-30x their annual GDP) and DIDN'T blow their infrastructure to Hell and frequently halted or impeded business? Maybe we wouldn't be spending so much just on counternarcotics in Afghanistan if our efforts were to build people up instead of shooting them down - maybe Afghanis really would raise llamas instead of growing poppies. US companies could still make the goods, and then we'd have a stronger useful economy instead of a stronger kill economy, and there's no reason for civil war when there's little resource scarcity. Look at that, and it's just.... why try suffocating terrorists with their own blood when we could just suffocate them by dropping hundreds of thousands of canned goods, books, medical supplies, seeds, livestock (... well, I'm not sure if there's a cheap way of safely dropping hundreds of lambs from hundreds of ft up), and building materials on their hideouts? When an "enemy combatant" is identified out in the open, I have no doubt it would be far more beneficial to literally just spray so much USD at him, he's knocked over and can't breathe because he has hundreds of pounds of fiat crushing his body and preventing air circulation. There aren't many wrong changes we could make compared to how awful the consequences of military intervention is.
It's the same damned thing for police, prisons, and related. Police and an outrageously high prison population can only deal with symptoms of a problem (and maybe not even in an effective way), and we still throw more money at treatment than we do at a cure. (alright, I'm out of high-horse one-liners, now)