"Isolationism" has worked nicely for those countries that stick to it. It's worked for 800-something years for the Swiss, even though they're in the middle of blood-soaked Europe. Seen any angry Muslims attacking the Swiss lately? Hmm. What about say, Sweden? Any countries in South America? What about the USA, circa....oh, 1925? Or 1937? No attacks? When did the anti-american sentiment begin then?
How about Syria, 1949? Funny how that follows so closely after the creation of Israel.
Also, in case you're thinking that Pearl Harbor disproves isolationism. Remember that a power-hungry socialist named FDR was itching to get us into war for at least two years before that. We eagerly encouraged Japanese consumption of american gasoline in the late 30's while they were conquering Asia, then when they were hooked, we placed a gasoline embargo. Then, even though we had cracked the Jap radio codes, we placed the lion's share of our fleet at Pearl Harbor, and ignored warnings from Navy men who knew something was coming. As you can see, this isn't exactly a great example of the failure of noninterventionism--as FDR's opponents, the old right, used to understand.
Our entry into WWI was even less innocent, btw. The Lusitania was loaded to the gills with ammunition, and her British escort was ordered away just as they approached waters where a German submarine was known to be patrolling. The Kaiser's government even ran ads warning americans not to get on board. Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan warned president Wilson beforehand, but was ignored, and resigned once he realized his administration was trying to manuver the Krauts into firing the first shot.
Then there's the Spanish american war and the Gulf of Tonkin incidents, which are well-known frauds. So let's not talk about how noninterventionism has failed, when it hasn't.
