Why does the U.S. love helping Islamist radicals?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Afghanistan - Initially not Islamist radicals, and never fully Islamic radicals (also anyone who refers to the 80s mujahadeen as the "Taliban" loses the internet.)
Bosnia - Not Islamist radicals. Or even observant Muslims for the most part.
Kosovo - Pretty awful people (as anyone familiar with how Albanian drug rings and human traffickers operate), but hardly Islamist radicals, or once again, even observant Muslims.
Libya - Very small percentage of rebel forces were Islamic radicals, and current government replacing Gaddafi does not consist of Islamists.
Syria - Once again, only small percentage of rebels are Islamists.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So we can invade them later.

...that doesn't even make sense. The only Muslim countries the US invaded in modern times were Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter which was under a secular government. So the only such example is Afghanistan, were the Islamists were not major players until after the US ceased involvement (the Taliban didn't even exist until 1994.)

Considering how dumb and overall awful both Reagan and Bush's foreign policies were it's best to at least make sense when attacking them.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

PNAC needs a 3rd Pearl Harbor.

This also doesn't make sense as it borders on 9/11 "truth"erism, and refers to an essentially defunct organization (PNAC) and there's no neoconservative influence on the current administration*. It's not 2003 anymore.

*Being hawkish and being a neoconservative are not the same thing, McCain and Lindsey Graham for example are not neoconservatives by any meaningful definition of the word even if their foreign policy views are horrible and default to warmongering. "Neoconservative" is actually a very narrow term in who it refers to, the co-opting of it by some liberals to mean "Anyone more hawkish than me" or by paleoconservatives and libertarians to essentially mean "anyone I disagree with" is a grammatical atrocity. There isn't even really anyone in elected office who could accurately be called a neoconservative, the closest person to one was Joe Lieberman, but he's no longer in elected office either.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

PNAC needs a 3rd Pearl Harbor.

This also doesn't make sense as it borders on 9/11 "truth"erism, and refers to an essentially defunct organization (PNAC) and there's no neoconservative influence on the current administration*. It's not 2003 anymore.

*Being hawkish and being a neoconservative are not the same thing, McCain and Lindsey Graham for example are not neoconservatives by any meaningful definition of the word even if their foreign policy views are horrible and default to warmongering. "Neoconservative" is actually a very narrow term in who it refers to, the co-opting of it by some liberals to mean "Anyone more hawkish than me" or by paleoconservatives and libertarians to essentially mean "anyone I disagree with" is a grammatical atrocity. There isn't even really anyone in elected office who could accurately be called a neoconservative, the closest person to one was Joe Lieberman, but he's no longer in elected office either.

What?  BRTD, first you say neoconservatism is an ideology just like Nazism and Stalinism, and now you say it only applies to a small group of people that includes Joe Lieberman but not John McCain for some reason (I can think of a reason but it doesn't go with your "discredited ideology" statement).  Could you give us your definition of neoconservatism for us so we can tell what you are talking about?

I'll go into detail when I have a bit more time, but here's the core thing: There are very few people who could accurately be identified as neoconservatives. It's a quite narrow term.