Retaliation is a real problem, when you don't crush your enemy. U.S. foreign policy didn't have to punish Japan for it's Manchurian expansion, but it resulted in Pearl Harbor. Japan absolutely completely had to be destroyed brick by brick for that nation to yield. No Japanese terrorists since. Other incidences of unprovoked and unchallenged acts: see Crimea and Nazi annexations.
> U.S. foreign policy didn't have to punish Japan for it's Manchurian expansion, but it resulted in Pearl Harbor. Japan absolutely completely had to be destroyed brick by brick for that nation to yield. No Japanese terrorists since. Other incidences of unprovoked and unchallenged acts: see Crimea and Nazi annexations.
That's an insane conclusion. There have been plenty of border skirmishes that haven't resulted in greater aggression. Those are cherry picked data points.
Ok, assuming your points are correct, you can retaliate against a known, organized force (or person), but you cannot retaliate against a nebulous group of people who exist in different parts of the world, many of whom share completely different ideologies.
You cannot "retaliate" against terrorism any more than you can retaliate against car crashes and deaths from cancer.
