US involvement in, say, Nicaragua, training murderous militants to target teachers, nurses, social workers etc. to undermine a nascent socialist regime all in defiance of international law and the US Congress, could be seen as having sprung from the highest of intentions

You noted that this would be considered "US involvement" as if to imply the nation and it's people were to blame, despite also noting these actions were against the wishes of congress and the U.S.'s international obligations.

We are morally responsible for the crimes of "our side." We are not morally responsible for the crimes of others that we do not aid or abet. It is the height of hypocrisy for Americans to pontificate about what they can do to reduce terrorism in the world if they are not willing to talk about American (and American-sponsored) terrorism.

You seem to be more than willing to indict all Americans for the crimes of "our side" but you see the nuance in other nations:

Chomsky likes to compare himself with Soviet dissidents. We applauded Soviet dissidents when they stood up and spoke about Soviet crimes;

The reason I mention that last part is because you said:

Harris and other liberal intellectuals like him have trained themselves their entire lives not to question certain fundamental tenets of power politics - namely that might makes right and we can do what we want

Have you never read anything Sam Harris has written? The end of faith is all about Christianity and the west. The moment we discuss global ideologies suddenly everyone's a blind nationalist who refuses to admit the errors of their own people and only points to others.

Every single conversation can't encompass every side of every issue, otherwise we'll waste all of our time with conditional statements preparing for others taking offense. Just because the U.S. crimes aren't mentioned in every book, doesn't mean the author is ignoring them.