ben, i just want you to know that i think i understand and follow your line of thinking. have been mulling on this post for a while now. this is not my forte, but i want to raise a question. you let me know if i'm out of line.
regarding your question about whether one nation's militant enforcement of [its own polity's/culture's/society's/religion's ideal political/cultural/social/religious freedoms] onto another nation/our own nation -- whether we would view that as jihad on their part or cause for a holy war on our own part -- i believe yes, we probably would.
what if our people prefer a religious state to a secular state? what if we prefer a leader who votes his conscience on moral issues above issues of economic wisdom and domestic and foreign policy? (oh wait, that's exactly what we do want and fight for here.) would we think it just or anything less than propaganda and manipulation if expatriated emigrant Americans were not only permitted but encouraged to cast absentee ballots in our elections?
would we resort to bombing and other violent terrorist activism? probably not. what constrains us? our Christian worldview. what motivates, on the other hand, an Iraqi Muslim? his Muslim worldview.
so i think i agree with your first part there. i seriously question America's justification for prolonged and prolonged and prolonged interference in the affairs of other nations and cultures. it's the secularized version of the white man's burden, and it's just as effectual on the political/socioeconomical level as it is in the realm of faith and hope and practical theology.
i question your four items. it is war-time and terrorism that have effected such dire measures as racial profiling. since Islam is such an integrated issue, and since the demographics prove that Islam has infiltrated and does dominate certain races and cultural backgrounds, racial profiling has become a necessary evil.
it is indeed a privilege to be able to immigrate to the USA. i agree with a prefer the open doors policy that is possible when homeland-changers are not a potential threat. but is that privilege and good thing therefore automatically a right? does it remain a right when it becomes a risk to US-born US citizens? simply because someone is born human, does he have an inherent right to uproot and plant himself in the midst of a foreign culture?
we Americans are sometimes equally presumptuous when we venture overseas. we assume that since the globe is at our fingertips now, we therefore can possess and manipulate it, and we are blind enough to believe that we blend in. the reality is that if secular humanism or some other notoriously-American religion became a militant threat to the safety and property of a particular country, that country would have every right to revoke our visiting or residential privileges and bar us from their resources and ideals and freedoms, as noble and desireable as those resources and ideals and freedoms may be.
i know there are a ton of factors, and i'm not scratching the surface of what i'm tossing around in my head, so i know i must not be considering all the aspects and ramifications of your suggestions, either. but i do agree with you that i think Americans would do well to turn the tables more often, stop focusing on the fancy-pantzy patriotic language and really start evaluating (especially applying a Christian worldview) which true-red-white-and-blue "American ideals" are really worth living for and lobbying for or dying for or being wrong for, and whether those "worth"s apply on foreign soil as well.