As I mentioned, I think there are legitimate economic concerns throughout the countries of the Middle East where violent Islamist radicalism is incubated and from which it is exported. They're economic grievances. There are legitimate concerns about the past. But all of these, in my judgment, pale in the explanatory power of this radical version of Islam as an explanation of this terrorism. My point was not so much to say that I think we need to address economic grievances. I do think we should, but this is a standard understanding of what we should be doing in the Middle East. What I am saying that I believe is truly new is that religious freedom is the answer to this linchpin of radical religion.
Religious freedom is a counterterrorism tool. Religious freedom frees Muslims to speak about their own religion and not be charged with blasphemy when they do so in a liberal way. Religious freedom, as both history and common sense make clear, plus modern research, is a way to bring religious people into the public square. It's not a matter of getting Islam out of the way. It's a matter of accommodating Islam to the basic norms of self-governance and, if you like, liberalism, although that's a term that is heavily laden.
So the answer to your question is yes, they're economic grievances, and they're concerns about the history of imperialism, but I think it is a mistake to focus on those. It's far more important to focus on religious freedom as the antidote to religion—to violent religion, I should say, religious extremism.