I was in a moderate islamic country when the cartoons were published and shall I say it was not a comfortable feeling when communicating with locals.
Now read the parent article, which praises an earlier United States - one that had not yet lost its 'moral authority', which primarily consisted of its superior freedom and civil liberties.
If the author's logic is correct, the United States could reduce terrorism by regaining and retaining its moral authority. Yet both the Danish attack and the fatwa against Rushdie were specifically directed against people exercising their civil liberties, the same civil liberties that the author argues were an essential component of the American 'moral authority' that ultimately undermined the USSR.
This is why the author's article is an anti-American screed. However repugnant we might find Abu Ghirab, and whatever our opinions about the war in Iraq, these events are not the root cause of Islamic terrorism in the West.
besides, could you name "western country" not part of the "coalition of the willing" that has seen similar increase in terrorist attacks?
As for whether the actions of Bradley Manning will result in the deaths of American soldiers or Afghan informants - I suspect none of us here has the ability to properly evaluate this, and neither does the author of the article.