There is insufficient reason to assume this is true, and scant evidence. Yet your politics seem to based on it to a substantial extent.
Watching the Bushies from up close, my perception is they were beside themselves with plans to aggrandize the rich with tax cuts, defense spending (not the same thing as the use of force), & energy subsidies. They hoped to recast our whole system of social insurance. It is not at all obvious that they welcome this conflict. Certainly some defense hawks do because it is their meat and potatoes, but the interests of the Administration were substantially elsewhere. They didn't have to sell the public on raising military spending -- the loyal opposition had already conceded that priority (plus missile defense) before 911.
Bush the First's resounding victory over Saddam seemed obvious at the time, but it didn't do him much political good. Churchill was disposed of before WWII was even over, if memory serves (if not, soon after). Nobody's getting any prizes for the "War on Drugs," which this war may come to resemble. I don't see it as such a blessed event for the capitalist class.
That OBL and Al-Qaida are more or less exactly what they appear to be, and about what they appear to be about, is a much simpler explanation. Why concoct some fantastic alternative, except to indulge ideological preconceptions?
Some people tried to make Vietnam a matter of crude materialism, but it was always a stretch. So too with loose talk about pipelines and the spice road. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
mbs