The most important common ground is the question Realists and we realistic Non-Interventionists ask and keep needing to ask: Does this particular mission or operation make the average resident in the US less or more safe and secure? The answer, I'd imagine nearly unanimously, is less.
I know you aren't implying it, but even if it "makes Americans safe", what right does the U.S. government have going around the world making it safe for Americans?
I agree, but even though the Realists would agree that would be an acceptable use of force, in my mind I can't think of a single operation beyond somehow getting Osama extralegally (Realists) and legally through extradition (us, though Dr. Paul himself suggested letters of marque) where we might differ. And the realists agree with us that the US should not have put Osama in position to write his fatwas and declare war anyway.