(1)Al Queda,
I rarely have a kind word to say about the CIA, but to say that they didn't understand Bin Laden is simply false. They had Clinton to deal with, and he wasn't interested in doing anything that had a whiff of risk on it.
(2)its basis in radical Islamic fundamentalist philosophy - not reactions to U.S. policy -
At the core of al-Qa'ida, they couldn't care less about U.S. policy, because they're religious fanatics. But, the reason that the U.S. policy angle sells so well in the Middle East is that most people there live under the boot of U.S. backed dictatorships, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc. They see their own governments as cowards and bullies who sell their people out to stay rich and live like kings, and arm themselves with U.S. firepower. Islam totally notwithstanding, that's a huge factor in AQ's attraction as a resistance movement.
and (3) just how deep the radical philosophy was penetrating Islamic societies and creating public push in those societies for changes in the policies of Islamic nations, to fulfill the goals of the radical philosophy - movement toward a world Islamic caliphate.
That's true, in the same way that global Communism appealed to many purely nationalistic movements. It was a source of power that helped them achieve a goal, even as it corrupted them along the way.
Jihadist backers are no different than Soviet ones. They have a seductive sounding offer that promises power, support, and a unifying ideal. It seeks to tap into genuine local problems, and to pervert them for other uses, though. Still, 8th century Islam wouldn't be persuasive at all in the absence of major injustice in the region. As Americans, we have a hard time understanding what repressed and powerless people will sell out to in order to be free, even if it means trading one devil for another.
You have a wrong premise - that Muslims want to be free in the sense of freedom as understood by Western civilization.
The only "freedom" a Muslim wants is to repress people in the name of religion. Ask any Muslim woman, for starters.
Sorry, but the history and the facts don't agree with you. As late as 1998 the CIA had not affected one single direct human penetration of Al Queda or anyone near it. Most of what they thought they knew came from what they were told by other intelligence agencies (which never told them all they knew) and which left the CIA not even looking to track Osama until years after Al Queda was formed and its goals set, and then (mid to late 1990s) knowing mostly only, from the NSA technical data, where Osama was and not how his network was managing to operate. They did not, for far too long, understand the depth and breadth of the Islamic terrorist networks and the comprehensive religious-philosophical principles from which the rational for those networks developed; the principles Osama and all his clones believe in; and how it is those principles, and not US policy that draws in Osama's, Hamas, Hezbolla's recruits. CIA and State accepted the false notion, handed by Al Queda's religious backers to the "Muslim street" that US policy was the core problem that drove the terrorists to their actions, and our intelligence actions were actually reactions to our own acceptance of that false belief.
"But, the reason that the U.S. policy angle sells so well in the Middle East is that most people there live under the boot of U.S. backed dictatorships, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc. They see their own governments as cowards and bullies who sell their people out to stay rich and live like kings, and arm themselves with U.S. firepower. Islam totally notwithstanding, that's a huge factor in AQ's attraction as a resistance movement."
Yes, they, with the help of the American media, sell Arab and Muslim myths. There was no more oppressive state governing Muslims in the Middle East than Iraq under Saddam Hussein and he was not "backed" by the U.S., in spite of the myths told about the U.S. even-handed (hope for no winners) approach to Iran and Iraq during their war. Syria, another oppressive dictatorship has never been propped up or greatly embraced by the U.S. There is no more oppressive state in the Middle East governing Muslims today than the theocracy in Iran; no great puppet of the U.S. There was probably no more oppressive state in the Middle East than Afghanistan under the Taliban, and it was created by fellow-travelers of Osama, which should tell every Muslim of just what Osama's "liberation" has to offer.
Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East are great at blaming everyone else for their own indigenous failures, expect the world to help get rid of their failures and then blame the world for interfering when it does. It doesn't matter, too many Arabs and Muslims of the Middle East just love victimhood.