I'm not convinced that AQ really wields significant economic power.
The fact that non-state actors are supporting (in some cases with State support) effective insurgencies, NGOs that provide medical care and preach violent jihad (it's working, so it is influence, thus power), and build their version of schools (and pay for students around the world to attend them) to further mobilize the 1.3 billion Sunni Umna clearly indicates that non-state actors have considerable economic power. Economic power isn't based on GDP, it based on how much influence you have over the relevant audience with the money you do have. In other words, economic power is not always economic might (if you're constrained from spending your money effectively, it doesn't matter), economic power is the ability to wield your economy capability (whether is $2mill or $2bill) in a way that "influences" the target audience to conform to your desires.

The other side of the coin is that our state based economic power centers are more vulnerable to attack than non-state economic centers of gravity. On the other hand, with the exception of freezing some bank accounts, their sources of economic might through organized crime, world wide donations through informal channels, etc. are much harder to target effectively. I'm a supporter of the argument that non-state actor indirect attacks on our economy (actions that cause us to spend, spend, spend in response) may not be sustainable, but that is open to debate. To avoid stupid spending where we get no return on our investment we need to develop a smart strategy (different than so called smart power).

I don't think the "Smart Power" term is meant to imply that we previously used stupid power... it's a buzzword
You made my point, it is nothing new, just another buzzword; however, the implication is clear, military power is stupid and it won't work. Those who study these matters have always known there are some problems where the military is the correct response and other cases they're simply a supporting arm if they're a player at all. As you look throughout our history you can find several examples of so called smart power. Smart power could actually mean something, it could mean developing our human capital with education, but I'm off on another subject....

In any event I'd argue that the change in the US position relative to the rest of the world has more to do with political and economic factors than with military ones.
No doubt that is true, furthermore we have new threats that our Cold War political-military model is not ideally postured to deal with; however, (and this may not be your intent) you can't separate military power from the evolving economic and political environment, since both define (and constantly redefine) how military power can be employed. My argument that our current (post cold war era) views has severely constrained the military to the point that even if the administration desires a military solution it is not possible. Keep in mind that can change very rapidly, since we all know the last World War (hell, the last war ever according to some) was WWI. We may have to get mean again, and if we do the political environment will probably change to allow that.

I dislike political correctness as much as anyone, but we have to recognize that the days when we could simply impose a solution that suits our interests are gone forever.
I think you missed the mark on this one, due to political correctness we attempt to impose what are perceived as hostile Western solutions that suit our views (not necessarily our interests). If we would wake up and realize we can't always impose our views upon others (unless we're willing to do so by force), then we'll develop more realistic policies. I think we may agree on this one?