No, it does not. It assumes that there are far less reasons to attack us and that the benifits of this policy far outweight the detractions.
Here it is important to recognize that the 9/11 hijackers' (and Wahabi Islam's) primary complaint against us has mostly to do with American cultural influences. Other enmity is spurred by our economic dominance.
I partially agree with you here. Our culture is seen as a cancer but, and a very large but at that, the degree to which we push our culture eastward (and westward and norhtward etc) is the primary reason that this is such a huge thorn in their side. And that degree, as stated countless times in many so-called neocon manifestos, is absolutely as far as we can push it and by whatever means we have at our disposal. We don't see the Islamopsychos railing against Christianity specifically but rather the Christians that are occupying their land and their childrens minds (much the same way we rail against Liberalism I might add but with far more energy).
Your final paragraph is a nice summary of the situation if a bit too constraining. If I might...
If we insist on spreading our way of life to those we deem need it we will forever be in a state of offensive, or forcfull, foriegn policy. But if we make no formal concerted attempt to spread our wealth we will be in a state of constant vigilance, ever ready to defend our wealth from those that come to take it. I prefer the latter on principle.
Our cultural influence and economic power have not been spread by "formal concerted attempts." Yet they still make people want to attack us.
You've begged the question, though: if somebody (say, Osama bin Laden) threatens to attack us, are we morally bound to wait until he's actually trying to hurt us, or are we allowed to take him out once it's clear that he'll eventually make the attempt?
This points out the problem with strict neutrality: it's stupid. It gives the other guy a free shot at our jaw, and requires us to hold off on protecting our interests until the price of doing so becomes enormous.
Again: we have an obligation to carefully choose when to intervene, but we also have an explicit interest in maintaining the right to intervene when our interests demand it.