The OSU attacker claims to be motivated -- according to this FB post, which law enforcement says is his -- by the killing of Muslims in Burma.
I'm going to ignore the claims by this obvious loser to speak for "every single Muslim," which are clearly absurd. What really strikes me is the claim that America is somehow responsible for the killing of Muslims in Burma. We haven't had significant ties with Myanmar for almost twenty years. Our sanctions program aimed at them was precisely in order to object to the government's murder of its own people, and to try to motivate them to stop it. Lest one claim that the sanctions themselves are murderous, we have been working recently to begin lifting them -- just because the government seems to be involved in some reform efforts we want to encourage.
In the wake of 9/11, I thought the lesson was that we could not afford to be disengaged from the world. Afghanistan was somewhere we had also ignored for quite some time, having been on their side against the Soviet invaders. But they came to harbor a poisonous hatred for the West, especially America, and to nurture and protect terrorist movements like al Qaeda.
After 15 years of war in Afghanistan, though, I'm now wondering anew if engagement is the answer. Ultimately, things like this cast doubt upon the claims that the West is hated for its policies. Whether engagement or disengagement is pursued, and even when the disengagement is shaped around trying to encourage positive reforms in the way the people of a country are treated, hatred seems to continue. We are blamed for what we do, and for what we do not do.
If we do disengage, we're in a moment where the Russians and Chinese are likely to step up. If you thought the Pax Americana was bad, wait until you have to deal with Beijing.