It didn't work prior to 1948 either. Ask the Czech people about the Sudetenland, or the Austrian's about the Anschloss, and the terrorism and political assassination in both those countries by NAZI terrorists prior to both incidents. We are in very much the same position that England was prior to 1939. The difference is we aren't being led by Stanly Baldwin or Neville Chamberlain. The question is are we being led by Winston Churchill?
Make no mistake. If it meant the survival of England Churchill would have danced on a fine line over those situations, even being willing to sacrifice another nations' sovereignty for the sake of England's. In fact he did consider and in some ways advocate negotiating with Germany over the grievances that brought the NAZIs to power. In the end he concluded that sacrificing those people's liberty for supposed security was a losing proposition, on all levels.
I believe that Bush is balancing on a similar line right now. He is interested in holding off a world war. Not only will we be fighting the Islamists, but we'll also be fighting the remaining Communist dictators (Cuba, NK, etc.) as well as the generically anti-American forces, such as Brazil, France and Germany (with guns, without question), much of Africa, Asia and South America. We'll also be fighting (with guns, also without question), the hard core Democrats, DUers, Hollywood elite and their fellow travelers. They'll be joined by the Eric Rudolph "white might" fanatics (the enemy of my enemy, think of OKC) marching alongside the crips and the bloods and every other nut case that just sees a chance to screw those that they blame for their own pain and failures. I think he believes he's risking lives with some questionable tactics to possibly avoid the certain spending of lives in an all out conflict, which is surely the alternative.
If that's the case then I understand it, and am willing to give it some chance. I trust him and his team. Not a chance I'd trust almost anyone else.