I don't doubt for a minute that it was a forgone conclusion, but I fundamentally disagree that the passive approach was the right one. And I do not believe that anyone with the interests of the U.S. imperium in mind, would have traded an increased flow in oil production for the damage wrought to our economy by the 9/11 attacks.
And I do not believe that anyone with the interests of the U.S. imperium in mind, would have traded an increased flow in oil production for the damage wrought to our economy by the 9/11 attacks.
Two possibilities which could render your point invalid -- or at least irrelevant or moot.
1) I'll bet even the terrorists didn't expect the WTC buildings to collapse, so the damage to our economy was potentially far greater than anticipated;
2) The negative economic impact may be only in the short- and long-term. Massive rebuilding, and war, will temporarily stimulate the economy, lessening, IMO, the impact of an economic downturn which was inevitable, and already underway.
I would've flagged Askel5 to this but since you and I both used the term "economy," smoke would be pouring out of her ears before she reached the end. Oh, heck with it, I'll do it anyway . . . . . . . . . . . maybe the smoke will bring a good-lookin' fireman over.