Rather poorly thought-out thread premise, I’ve got to say.
This assumes that there is some sort of “Terrorism, Inc.” directing a co-ordinated campaign of some sort. I see no evidence of this other than some sharing of information, and to a lesser extent, monetary or other assets amongst various small, semi-automomous cells that vary widely in ideology and objective. To answer your question, we need to know: which terrorists are you talking about and what do you think their primary objective is?
I would also ask the OP, how well do you understand the root causes of terrorism and the potential reaction to events precipitated by the United States? Judging from the opening paragraph of your post, I’d say not very well.
Well, given the presumption that a lack of terrorist attacks against American civilians on US soil is a Good Thing, that would be a useful outcome, right?
I disagree completely with your assessment, and even if I didn’t, one of the most precious things about this country is that we are not obligated to go along with every single boneheaded move by one government official or another. If your real argument here is “anyone who protest US involvement in Iraq is unpatriotic”, you should have said that to begin with, rather than trying to cover it up with a red herring about what “the terrorists’” next move is.
If you respond to nothing else, I respectfully request that the OP respond with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question: do you recognize that some of the people killed by US troops in Iraq, and imprisoned there and at Guantanamo Bay, are in fact innocent of any association with or responsibility for terroristic acts against the United States?
If your answer is yes, and if you care to handle a follow-up, how does the behavior of the US toward these people reduce the chance of future such acts against the US?