Yeah, you're right, we aren't. That's the point. We should be. And it's been quite a while since we've 'won' one.
It has nothing to do with making our enemies love us.
I know this is going to be taken personally, but I assure you I don't mean it to be inflammatory:
This is exactly the problem. The country collectively acts selfishly when emotion is involved, but then a couple years down the road still tries to stand on the pedestal and say we're better than the rest.
'Whatever it takes to keep my family and I safe' with no regard for the bigger picture and the greater good. Tap the phones, torture the bad guys for intel, hastily invade Iraq. Then two months down the line we see some other entity acting selfishly and get all indignant about it.
Beheading journalists on camera serves a purpose for ISIS, whether you believe it or not. Don't get righteous and bent out of shape over it when it happens, because they're just acting selfishly with no regard for others, same as us if we condone torture when it's convenient. It's just more personally painful when the shoe is on the other foot (and no, I'm not suggesting that if we set the example, ISIS will follow...it's not about that).
The rules are that you accept the fact that living freely comes with a cost...and that the cost is worth paying.
I don't point my fingers when something goes 'boom'. To the contrary, I would accept a 9/11 magnitude attack on a regular basis as the cost of living freely without concern...even if it affected me personally (I'm aware that I'm in the minority here, but I mean what I say...and I'm not saying I wouldn't support doing everything reasonable to prevent it, but it wouldn't involve subverting the Constitution or the ideals we claim to stand for).
This country gave G.W. the keys to the cupboard post 9/11 because it was collectively acting on emotion. I'd wish that our politicians could be counted on to act logically under strain even when the citizens are delusional with emotion, but no. Instead we got the Patriot Act, and all other assortment of Executive mandates behind the scenes. They are collectively some of the most counter-Constitutional acts that we've seen in decades (I don't need examples of Civil War era government overreach...horrible behavior doesn't justify bad behavior, and if everything we did in the past was some sort of benchmark of acceptability, then I guess we need to bring back slavery and prevent women from voting).
For god's sake, John Ashcroft eventually cried foul and made it known he thought the administration [that he was employed by] was way out of line, and he was about as far from a Constitutional savior as you can get.
You know that guy, Gruber? We'll he was right. The American people are stupid.
Despite what we're taught in elementary school, the governance structure in the U.S. is absolutely not a 'majority rules' Democracy. There's plenty of dumb shit we'd be doing if we acted on population surveys. The Bill of Rights is all about protecting minority positions against majority rule. The majority of people in this country would object to carrying a gun in a lot of circumstances, burning a flag, or being a Jew. There aren't laws reflecting that majority opinion for a reason.
I don't follow your logic that because nobody has derailed the conversation by bringing up Al-Awlaki, it somehow indicates everybody's stance on the matter. There are a million different topics of conversation that could tie into this discussion; they can't all be addressed simultaneously.