From the Featherstone piece:

As a vision of the future it was pragmatic and, I feared, too optimistic. The military will always be a blunt instrument, whether it is crashing through walls or entering through a door held open by an HTT. But as long as we use our military as the primary tool of our foreign policy, one could hardly improve upon this vision.
Kudos to Steven for asking the right question, ala "I, Robot".

How about we develop non-military foreign policies that address fighting radical islam, while simultaneously addressing some of the causes that radicalists use to gain support against us through a civilian-led and academically vetted set of programs designed to solve problems without using military force?

I believe Galula said in his seminal counterinsurgency book that the counterinsurgency needs to be led by a civilian agency. But then, he also said that the legal issues surrounding how to deal with insurgents need to be worked out first, but at least we are consistent.