Is this a response to "Western territorial invasion"? Nope, it's a response that is already in the cultural matrix. Note, for example, that the "history" has been conveniently rewritten by the Islamist crowd to gloss over he minor fact that they invaded and conquered large parts of the Byzantine Empire, the entire Persian Empire and the Visigoth Kingdom of Spain.
This seems a rather odd take. If Mexico sent infantry battalions across the border into Texas and California, I doubt anyone here would call this anything but a territorial invasion, despite the fact that Texas and southern California were Mexican territory far more recently than any part of the Middle East was Christian. I don't think we would accept a formulation that told us this was simply Mexican rollback of Anglo-American invasion.

I also find it odd that you seem to identify the sources to suicide terrorism in the cultural matrix of the Middle East. As Pape points out, suicide terror is a relatively modern phenomenon in the Middle East without any deep historical foundation. Also, the Hindu Tamil cultural matrix seems largely devoid of any historical stirrings towards suicide martyrdom.

I'd argue as well that Islam represented a historical rejection of the God-King cultural formulation, instead enforcing a strict separation of Godhead from human rulership, instead embedding religious authority in either a more broad-based religious/cultural consensus based in the ulema (the figure of the caliph has often been mischaracterized as a Pope figure, when in fact even Ottoman caliphs who wielded real worldly power often had to mediate their authority through the ulema, especially when it came to intra-Islamic matters). Historically the attitude of most Sunni Muslims towards their rulers has been, I'd argue, represented by the idea that the split between divinely authorized rulership occurred after Ali's death. Yezid and Mua'wiya of the Umayyads have been reviled ever since Abbasid times (understandably since the Abbasids themselves were seeking religious justification, which was also largely withdrawn when they emulated Umayyad decadence) as being earthly kings rather than true caliphs representing God's will on Earth.

For Shia, of course, there is a definite variation with their veneration of the Grand Ayatollahs.