And basing one's opinion on what you see on TV is, of course, scholarly. If you want to go that route, how about including the information-starved Afghanis who didn't even know about 9/11, until newsmen told them about it? Or those who celebrated liberation from the Taliban in the streets of Kabul? Or the anti-regime demonstrations by the Iranians that have been verified by several different news sources? Of course, the latter weren't televised (something to do with government-controlled media, I believe), so, of course, in your well-wrapped reasoning, those events don't exist.
As for Huntington, there are a few things he did not take into account in his diagnosis: chiefly, the violence of Miltant Islamists against Muslims. The oppression and brutality that characterizes the Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian and Saudi Arabian regimes may make for apparent solidarity, but only because the alternative -- dissent -- is punishable by death, or worse. Maybe these people aren't ready for democracy, but it's a safe assumption that the very humanity of the common man cries out for an existence with some semblance of freedom and dignity, in whatever form that might take. Look to the secular government of Turkey for a model; it isn't exactly utopia, but it's a damn sight better than the living hell endured by the common man in Iraq.
There's no quick cure-all, but it's better to fight trying to change things, albeit slowly and with difficulty, then simply waiting for the cancer of militant Islam to spread and engulf the world. It's exactly that failed policy of appeasement that brought us 9/11, and that will bring us even darker days in the years ahead if we do nothing to change these regimes.