Well, thracozaag, firstly, you missed the most important goal of the USA, to which you already agreed (you remember, point 3). Even if the US president is really willing to help these people there, to promote democracy, it is just not the picture he is giving. It at least seems that he is just striving for the oil. So, at best, this is an image problem. And at worst, you have voted for a corrupt and money driven leadership, which is now governing your country, not in the interest of its people, but of themselves. But I disgress.
Then, I actually don't see why promoting democracy is a good idea. Noone asked for that, and up until now, there have been more failures in US politics fooling around with other governments than there have been success. Did it ever occured to you that these people perhaps have no interest in our values? I am quite sure that if you had asked a German peasant in 11th century if he wants to be a free man, he would have stared at you for a long time and then spiked you with his hay-fork. As I said before, a modern state's form needs a modern society first. You will not be able to establish a democracy in a country where most people are suffering and still believe the things of Koran literally. So you have two options: try to help them a bit structurally, try to begin diplomatic negotiation with their leaders, try to begin a cultural dialogue, if you are really interested in that at all. This approach is careful, and with respect to their way of living, without false hauteur and arrogance. So, over a longer period of time, they become interested in the Western way of life, will open their markets, and thus will open their culture and society for Western values. This has happeden in China and the whole Far East. USA has not bothered with them for a long time. Now they are becoming more and more democratic. On the other hand, this approach has to ignore some violations of human rights in the countries it is dealing with. As we perceive in China too.
The other possibility is to try to get rid of the political leaders and just make these countries democracies no matter what the population thinks of this. This was the approach of the USA for a long time, if with intelligence mehtods (early 80's), military actions (90's and recently) or economical pressure (90's). After all, in the light of these actions, although now long passed, your point three seems like mockery. Both Saddam Hussein and the Muschaheddin were supported by the USA, how does that fit into your plan?
This approach is quite harmful to the population as it requires usage of warfare and causes major resistance in the population, aka rebellions. On the other hand, most often, when a certain economical improval is to be perceived, people tend to become somewhat open to democracy and the West. This has hapened for example in the richer oil states, such as Dubai (although WITHOUT any US involvement), and, to a very small extent, in Afghanistan, where the situation seems a bit calmer.
After all, the decision has already been made, so you have to think on how do you get the best of option number two.And that means, basically you have to ask yourself: will we be able to bring wealth and stability to the Mid-East without bringing up the whole population against us? If you can do this, than democracy will come by itself. There are only two problems: firstly, we won't make it. Most Western nations have serious economical problems, also the US is not in the good shape in was once (mostly because of the war in Iraq, you have to admit). Secondly, the USA does not want a wealthy and stable Mid-East. Because then their troops there would not be needed any longer. And a wealthy, modernized Mid-East will not be so easy to control, they probably want their oil for themselves, or at least they will not let themselves be taken to the cleaners so easily (note that these points are a personal opinion of mine, based on the events of the recent and farer past).
Further, I wonder how the USA want to make a 10 year stand in the Mid-East? These will be not realiseable, economically, political, military.
I could go on and on, I have to say... E.g. your second point: " Find, capture, and kill our enemies (in that order)". Lol, is there another order? And as I said I am not the big fan of just killing people, after all this is (IMO) no war in the classical sense, and the terrorist are no soldiers who can be killed no matter what. Capture, okay, but then give them a trial if they are in any way guilty. Just killing them is against any value America stands for, and makes the US military terrorist themselves (any innocent killed is a murder, not a war accident, then). I think there was a discussion lately on the status of these terrorists?
However, I have to practise... anyway, this won't change anything. We both had our opinions, I enjoyed your point of view. If you wanna go on, please do so, I don't feel the urge (will still respond).
Topic: London terrorist attacks