Relatively speaking, it is or at least was a handful of fanatics. Out of the hundreds of millions, perhaps over a billion Muslims, the majority of the Muslim population is not out to destroy America, this the problem with the strategy. It just reinforces the extremists argument of an evil America. Instead of reducing the number of people who are willing to listen to the crazy talk, it is having an opposite effect. Even these so called "home grown terrorist cells" are probably young Arab men who have been disenfranchised from society whether it be through perceived mistreatment or racism or just feeling left out. For whatever reason, they connect with the radical teachings of extreme Islam and meet others with the same mind set. Somewhere along the way, they dicuss possible methods of harming society. I think it is similar to the thinking of a young bullyed kid in schools who feels like an outsider and then goes out shooting people. Is it right, of course not. Millions and millions of people around the world disagree with US foreign policy but don't want to kill anyone over it. Yes, there are millions of Muslims out there who may hate the US right now, but are they all willing to go join a suicide squad, nope, I didn't see all the US citizens joining the military after 9/11 despite the rage within the society. Talk and action are two different things. You don't have to look any further than politicians to see that.
So what fuels this willingness to hate a country so much you are willing to kill yourself to kill others? Again, nothing in the present US policy in the "war on terror" is even considering this. All we hear is "they hate freedom" and now how they want totatalitarian Islamist regimes, well, again the US presently supports dictatorships in the Middle East so this whole argument doesn't even hold water. The problem with the Bush administration is that it is taking an extremely complex issue and simplifying it and thinking that throwing weapons at it will solve it or by taking out individuals will solve it. This simply won't work.
Actually, it is likely that the present policies have taken what was once a tiny group of outcasts and given them a stronger voice and sympathy amongst the general Muslim population. The US has invaded and occupied two Muslim countries. If the average Muslim citizen in the Middle East is as ill-informed or ambivalent about international policies as the average North American citizen then it is easy to see them developing a hatred for the US. Is this helping decrease or increase terrorism? Also, this climate of fear and Bush saying the US is safer but still not safe is almost laughable. We in North America have no idea what it is like to live in fear. We don't have foreign soldiers driving around our neighbourhoods in military vehicles with live weapons drawn or have overhead flights by foreign jets which could blow up a nearby target at any time. People in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon are susceptible to any propaganda thrown their way due to the circumstances under which they are living. They feel totally vulnerable to the US. People are seeing the US as the aggressors, not defenders. Comments by the President such as "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" is a perceived arrogance and a disregard for the civilian populations in the other countries. These things just add up to make people fear the US not sympathize with it.
In regards to reducing dependency on oil, where do you think the money for the funding of Islamic terrorists is coming from? Oil producing countries, it is their bankroll. Take it away, and you take away much of their economic power just as freezing the assets of suspected terrorist groups has diminished the abillities of these groups to fund themselves.
I don't think the "terrorists" will win. Taking away the root causes of extremist beliefs isn't done overnight. It also requires humility and goodwill and consistent policies towards other countries. If US policy is to condemn and have no ties with Communists, then China should be in the same boat as Cuba and North Korea. But no, economics trumps human rights and politics in this case. Same thing for the soft gloves treatment of Saudi Arabia. This just confuses people as to what does the US want? Dictators or no dictators, communism or no?
I don't think they want want the entire world to be ruled under their laws of Allah. Who knows what they want? Bin Laden keeps changing his statements to reflect current situations in the Middle East. Now, Al Qaeda says it will concentrate on the Middle East and Israel. Check out the book The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. I haven't read it yet but it discusses the motivations of Al Qaeda. The reasons given by Bush for Islamist terrorists are his reasons, not the real reasons. We don't know their true motivations but it does involve not having the US in the Middle East. Also, I feel pretty sure that the radical Imams might be telling their students " Do you think that the US wants the entire world to be ruled under their laws of God?" Probably.
Right now, security is supposedly extremely tight on airlines. But it's possible to smuggle liquids aboard a plane using a plastic case similar to a Mr. Freezie container taped to your leg. Unless you are physically searched, the machine wouldn't pick it up. How about under a fake piece of skin like makeup artists use? What would the security response be if there is an attack on a US subway, bus or train? The economic effects would be incredibly draining. Are there enough resources to have the security for those modes of travel to make citizens feel "safe'? What if they poison a water supply, or commerical products like Coke or powdered milk or medicine? Then what the response be. Are authorities even thinking about their contingency plans for such scenarios? If I can think it up, I'm sure they can. Do you ban all Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent from the airline industry including groundcrews and catering services whom may have access to planes? What if a nuke was detonated in the mainland US by a terrorist? Whom would you attack if you don't know where the nuke was acquired? Having said that, I do think that having a heightened security is a good thing and people are more aware of suspicious activity, maybe even too suspicious in some instances, but this has created another obstacle for extremists to overcome.
I think that if the present administration believes that its' solution is the only effective one, then don't expect any of your soldiers to return home soon. If the US had stayed in Afghanistan and built up their nation with a competent Afghan military, eliminated the warlords, reconstructed civilian services and constructed a strong border to prevent the Taliban from crossing back and forth from Pakistan and allowing a stable national government which could speak without the fear of assassination, then I would have some faith in this administration but alas that didn't happen. Also, fatwas from guys in hiding don't justify a policy of coming out guns a blazing. Ann Coulter has said some outrageous things like ""[Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent." or " We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" and she probably has a pretty large following too. The extremists are probably using her quotes too.