As far back as the 1700's, when we first encountered Muslim countries, the Muslims have stated it is because it is their duty to rule over the infidels or kill them. Jefferson and Adams asked them in 1786, by what right Muslims attacked US ships and enslaved US citizens. Tripolis Ambassador to Great Britain said Islam:
“Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
On and off, since then, we have and continue to try diplomacy. The notion that we drew first blood and/or that violence was ever our first step is flat out wrong. At first sight, we were attacked because we were not Muslim. The US paid ransom to retrieve her citizens who had been enslaved up until around 1800. That is where we learned not to negotiate with terrorists, as the ransoms became more and more, and then demanded an outrageous one-time fee plus yearly fees ... just because. When the US refused, they declared war on us. THEY declared war.
Every effort at diplomacy brings us right back to the position held by Tripoli's Ambassador to Great Britain. Until that position (Islam is to rule over "others" or kill them) changes, what is the point of diplomacy? Their position is clear. Submit or die. Defending one's citizens from unprovoked violence and hostility is not warmongering. Attacking and enslaving or killing anyone you encounter who doesn't submit to you, however, is warmongering.