Interventionism or Isolationism?

A lot of conversation on the news about America's policy against terrorism in the wake of the Paris attacks. How should America proceed? I'll bring up a few points, which could be debated but humor my attempt to oversimplify these opposing views, to guide the discussion:

1) Interventionism: A key tenant to this philosophy is that in order to keep America safe, America must disrupt terrorist organizations overseas. This philosophy also believes that our military actions overseas are not creating more terrorists (we are their enemy because we are who are not because of what we do) and if left unimpeded terrorist organizations will only flourish. In time, our operations will sufficiently strengthen our allies' ability to fight terrorist unilaterally and debilitate the terrorist organization's ability to operate.

Isolationism: A key tenant to this philosophy is that our operations overseas are creating more terrorist and we have the capability to stop terrorists from attacking America from a defense posture. Another key tenant to this philosophy is that we are playing into the terrorist hands by engaging in protracted COIN/CT operations that deplete our national resources and divides the US populace. The only solution to the terrorist problem is a home grown solution from within the Islamic world.