In step number 8, Biddle says as follows, "Answer objections to the effect that 'This approach will fuel more jihad!' with observations as to why that makes no sense. Claims to the effect that 'killing jihadists will cause more jihad' are absurd; and, when such objections arise, we should point out why this is so"
Well, framed this way it is absurd. However, as Biddle must know, this is not the argument. The argument starts with the fact that there are several million Muslims in the United States and over 40 million Muslims in Europe. A small number are inclined toward Jihad and there are millions of fence sitters and millions who are opposed. Assume that the West takes military action against Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Jihadists will continue to engage in Jihad and the fence sitters will become radicalized.
Look at the situation in France. In France, Muslims riot every year on New Years eve. Last year in Paris they burned over 900 cars. The Algerian Muslims riot if Algeria qualifies for the World Cup (or doesn't qualify for the World Cup).
And contrary to what Biddle seems to think, it doesn't take any kind of guidance from Saudi Arabia to riot and kill. Consider the Los Angeles riots in 1992. According to Wikipedia, 55 were killed and 2.00 injured.
One issue that I think is worth mentioning is "Sudden Jihadi Syndrome." Many of the Muslims who commit acts of terrorism were, shortly before their attacks, rather nominal Muslims. For example, the Chattanooga shooter was a user of alcohol and drugs until his shortly before his murder of five Americans. (Sudden Jihadi syndrome might have a biological basis.) So the prospect of large scale "conversion" of Muslims to Jihadism is quite likely.*
*Biddle in fact goes out of his way to avoid mentioning immigration. "Muslims who attack Westerners because we killed jihadists who
murdered our countrymen were already with the enemy and are now just
making it known" This makes it sound as if the "Muslims" are people who secretly entered into the West. In fact, they were people who were allowed to come here legally or are (in the case of French terrorists) often second or even third generation residents of France.