This, unfortunately, is an easy idea for certain very stupid people to turn over in their minds. (I once learned the Latin idiom specifically for "turn over in your mind" and for years I've been trying to remember what it is. Kills me every time that I forgot that.) I would never read this article (even if you told me to, haha) but I imagine what they actually mean is "no terrorism outside of the Middle East."

For the record I'm a staunch proponent of getting the hell out of the Middle East in every single official capacity, but not because it would end terrorism. Terrorism was, is and will be, because it works.

Let ISIS have their damn Caliphate.

If they wanted to destroy us before we started bombing them, they probably will after we stop too. Since they are explicitly anti-Western, especially the US, they won't just let us be.

We'd still be getting a lot of our oil from the Middle East if we left them alone,

Yeah, isolationism doesn't work that way. Especially if the regional powers end up being Iran, IS, and a newly un-allied Saudi Arabia.

A better strategy would be to flood the Middle East with marijuana. Or something.

Like opium? That's turned out so well. Besides, it's already flush with drugs. Not helping at all.

Everyone has covered other major problems with the article already, but I still thought I'd pull out the quick couple points above. I think it's pretty obvious that the author has little comprehension of the complexity that is foreign policy in the Middle East, or all of the factors at play.

The Persian line is pretty terrible, but I think the title is worse. It suggests that only the lives of those in the West matter, that somehow, attrocities and terrorism against those in the Middle East are acceptable and of little consequence to the world. Even if we completely ignore morals, a globalised economy means that the West has a huge stake in the stability of the Middle East. Pulling out would probably seriously injure the world economy.

Further, in pulling out, we would both give in to terrorism and encourage it. The same rationale as not negotiating with terrorists apply here. If we set the example that terrorism is an effective way to wage a war with the Middle East, other movements and regions will use it against us as well. It may be too late to send this message fully, because terrorism does work, but an aggressive response serves as a deterrent. Plus, groups like IS or al-Qaeda don't just want us out, they want us to crumble.

Terrorism works by instilling a constant and pervasive fear. The goal isn't to destroy the enemy outright, it is to force them to change their lives, pay attention, and potentially destabilize them politically. The correct response of course is more complex than ignoring it, but pulling out isn't a valid response at all. It could have worked for Vietnam, but not for this mess. Leaving the Middle East as it is now would only hurt the West in dozens of ways, and would do nothing to prevent terrorism.

It's time for the West to do the cowardly, sensible thing, and flee the Middle East with our tails between our legs.

What? They spend the entire article talking about how this is the right thing to do, then follow it up with this?

Anyway, I'm 100 percent positive that isn't how this works. They compare Spain backing out to the United States. Often people forget how entrenched the US is in foreign politics. We didn't get the movie Team America for nothing. Although I agree severe scaling back of military posturing is a better move I don't think it is even possible for the United States to separate themselves from the Middle East now.