Not at all. I feel you miss an essential point - one which you seem to address more sensibly in your Post #201. Refer to your own last two sentences where you start talking more sense.
You state: We are under attack by an international Jihad, we are ground zero for the war, and you talk of coalitions and soothing feelings with our enemies.
We are under attack by an international jihad, and you imply the answer is killing everyone who takes the name of Islam! Would you like to start with the 12 million or so in this country? And then would you like to go on to the 500 million or so others? Would this really be in America's best interests? Would you prefer to turn those with a passive adherence to Islam and a neutral stance into immediate jihadist warriors?
No. The wise course (not the most emotionally satisfying) is to appeal to those who can be appealed to and target those who can't. Strategically, we need to split the Islamic bloc, just as they mean to split ours by encouraging our anti-war wing and Liberals to look for the "root causes". Some Muslims can be appealed to and persuaded to forsake their more radical brethren or at least remain neutral. We should encourage these, not drive them into the camp of our sworn enemies.
We shouldn't look at our enemies with rose colored glasses. On the other hand, we need to take whatever help we can get when we can get it. This will be a long and bloody war. One of their tactics will be deception using the fervent kisses of Muslims who claim to be our friends. When revealed, we should go after them with the same ruthlessness we go after the visibly rabid factions. But, we shouldn't close the door on those who will really stand by us - and there will be some of these.