> On the other hand, there's good reason to believe that terrorism is directed against us because we're continually pointing guns in their direction.

There's a better reason to believe that terrorism is directed at us more because of our history and continuing practice of direct support for both repressive regimes that are unpopular with large segments of their own* population in the Middle East and Central Asia than because of our military specifically (though, particulary post-9/11, our use of the military has played directly into the same animosity.)

(* or, in the case of Israel specifically, a population that they simultaneously claim is not their own and disclaim interest in governing, but nevertheless seek to control every aspect of.)

> Can it be that the military is both the problem and its own solution?

Its a secondary aspect (as discussed above) of the problem, as well as a treatment for the symptoms that doesn't actually solve anything.

Sure, we need to have a military for defensive purposes. But the US doesn't maintain military spending at a level that rivals the rest of the world combined for anything resembling "defensive" purposes, it does so to maintain global hegemony and the ability to dictate policy in a wide range of domains to countries all over the world.

That's not to say it didn't come out of a legitimate, even defensive, place -- much of it was necessary, though one may certainly debate particular aspects, during the Cold War to counterbalance the attempts led by the Soviet Union to export Stalinism. But with that enemy defeated, the military-industrial complex is now more about serving domestic commercial interests -- both those that have are part of the military industrial complex and dependent on military spending directly, and those that through more traditional lobbying seek to have preferred policies imposed both domestically and globally.