Saracen. I agree with what you have stated pretty much in its entirity (it's happened again ) BUT
I think I've read a few too many books by Chomsky, Monbiot and Pilger to agree with the mild manner in which the discussion pans out. Yes, 9/11 was the catalyst for the current state of the world, but in no way was it the fuel for the fire. That has been steadily on the increase since the fall of fascism in Europe.
Since the war, and the fall of the Soviet Unionm, the US has done and will continue to act in its own interests. This is fine, when the country in question does not have a military budget 2 times larger than the next 5 countries combined. However, when you have a country with the military, financial, industrial and agricultural power of the US, I think that certain checks and balances need to be made.
These checks and balances no longer exist.
The US acts to protect it's interests. It did so to fight the scourge of communism (4 million dead Vietnamese, hundreds of thousands of dead Cambodians and people of Laos) and it is doing so now to fight the scourge of protectionism. Guatamala, Nicaragua, Cuba, Haiti, Indonesia, Columbia, Honduras, Afghanistan, Chile, East Timor. The list goes on and on.
I dunno. I'm rambling now. I think my point is that I agree with your analysis, but disagree with the serenity with which it is delivered.