This article is interesting in how much it reveals the mindset of a lot of the folks who write for NRO. It seems to me that there is a subtext in the article encouraging first-strikes against countries without evidence against them.
In other words, there is the implication that just because we can't prove that a state wasn't behind a terrorists attack doesn't mean we shouldn't target them for retribution. Moreover, there seems to be the goal of deputizing a large number of people as government agents to sniff out treachery or to spread pro-US propaganda in mosques.
The new soldiers of our frontline defenses must include Imams trained under government mandate to spot the infecting agents, including the hackers who breed among us. The new corps of imams must also move rapidly to prevent invective from filling their mosques and sanctuaries so as to give rise to groupings of people susceptible to terrorist manipulation.
In other words, we need a state-sponsored version of Islam to combat radical Islam.
Not mentioned is the possibility that maybe we in the west ought to let in fewer Muslims as a whole, which might decrease the number of disaffected Muslims in our countries and thus decrease the risk that they will be recruited into a terrorist campaign against us.
That is all.