The reaction to Susan Sontag's article on 9/11

Currently, in our English class, we went over Ms. Sontag's old article on 9/11. In her short, she scolded the public for being so gung-ho against the terrorists and asking for war in Iraq, when in reality, the attack was undertaken "as a conequence of specific American alliances and actions". As expected, the article experienced a huge amount of outrage from the public, still reeling from the aftermath of the attack. The public denounced her as a fraud, sent her death threats, and named her "Osama Bin Sontag." And yet, I agree with Mrs. Sontag's observations and the immaturity in which the public reacted to the attack.
How can we, as a nation, be insulted at an attack on our soil, call them terrorists and cowards, when in reality, our military does the same. Our military has been known for bombing Middle Eastern countries. It has invaded them, and pillaged them, not unlike vikings did. And what was our motive for all this? Oil. We destroyed countries, killed innocent civilians, and left society there in shambles so that we, as Americans, could get the oil to power our cars in the morning. As Susan Sontag outlines, is that not cowardly in its own right? Is it not shameful to attack from where the "enemy" is not allowed to retaliate?
We were told that this attack on American soil was an outrage and we must declare war on the Middle Eastern countries. Yet, this war on Iraq, Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries led to nothing substantive, and maybe, had we listened to Ms. Sontag about the immature way in which we were acting, we may have been able to stop the war even before it would have started.
                         Daniel Oleynik