I think we would attract a larger and more generous coalition if we took such a humanitarian approach. Even if it failed in the goal of reducing extremism, at least we would have accomplished something worthy.
Doing the world a bunch of favors is noble, but unwise; it is neither practical or safe. And opening our borders, as it were, will not reduce extremism in the slightest. If anything it will bring it here or strengthen what hold it does have elsewhere.
Even though the US is taking the lead in this fight, what is the responsibility that other countries (our allies) have? Inviting the world to the US under the pretense of asylum will not change the strategic/tactical situation and I am not sure what it would convey to our allies except that they would say, “Oh that is nice”. Germany and Britain and Australia and whomever else are not going to change their stance because we look nicer than the already nice that we are.
Western military intervention does not seem to have addressed the root cause of terrorism, so why continue down that road?
It has not eliminated the root cause but it addresses the immediate situation. The fewer terrorists there are, the less damage that can be done to us, our allies or innocent bystanders.
Also, what is the root cause? Do the experts even know? My impression is that it is no one thing, but a combination of different factors. Ultimately, the root is some-thing philosophical or theological. These are beliefs, cultural and otherwise, which cannot be changed by anything we do or say. The extremists or practitioners must themselves decide to no longer subscribe to it. It is impractical to do this through education and it has been repeatedly shown that negotiation is not an option.
I would offer that one of the best ways to eliminate the root causes of radical islamic terrorism is to eliminate the leaders and teachers of it. As I said above, they cannot be swayed or convinced to give up their beliefs with argument. The only way to end it would be to ensure that there is an overwhelming civilian and governmental majority of those who oppose the extremists or who do not stand for their intimidation. The only way this can be done is through reducing the number of extremists. That means killing them.
For the record, this is all theoretical. I personally believe that extremism in some form or another will always exist and cannot be eliminated from the earth. But it can always be blown to relative insignificance when it arises.
Also, without such humanitarian intervention, you can be certain than the millions of Syrians displaced by war will produce the desperate conditions that allows terrorism to thrive.
That, again, is impractical for us to control or deal with. It’s not like rebuilding Europe after World War II, or even Japan for that matter. Islamic terrorism is international and has no borders. It can thrive just as easily in Africa or Germany as it can in Syria. I would also dispute that terrorism (of the radical islamic variety) is primarily or significantly a product of poverty and destruction; that would imply they are no more than warlords and gangs. Islamic terrorism is a trans-national, religious mandate. It may be easier to prey on the weak population in a bereft country, but first the religious component has to exist.
As we have seen with Iraq, there is really no way to nation-build in the middle-east. Not effectively, anyway. The region is so unstable that all of NATO, let alone the US itself, could not hope to address all the geopolitical problems and havens for terrorists such that a democratic state can gain a foothold for any length of time. It is a very hard issue and not one with an overall perfect answer I think.
The simple and moderately successful solution, currently, is to pinpoint the bad guys and kill them.