Even the history as written by the victors has a consensus that this isn't true and wasn't necessary or desirable.

I don't discount the threat of terrorism, but if the threat was actually large enough to destroy a whole civilisation or way of life for a huge proportion of the world's population, then don't you think that the reaction would be much larger than it is, as was the case in WW2?

As for bombing funerals and journalists (who would die if a smart bomb were guided by a tracker that they were carrying), well I don't think that really merits serious discussion. Collateral damage may be unavoidable at times, but it is never excusable.

I do share your sene of frustration and think that the international community should be far more engaged rather than just reaping the potential future benefits of the efforts of others. However, I don't agree that the situation is unwinable, but I agree that without sufficient investment in infrastructure, the economy, poverty reduction and education, what is there to win?