That perhaps we should precisely define and engage the enemy instead of making oblique attacks that end up making the enemy stronger, more powerful.
I think you're completely wrong in your evaluation of the enemy. This is the first major attack on a western nation since the twin towers and it was nowhere near a deadly. They have been considerably weakened. They will run and morph and we will continue to hunt and kill. Our 'oblique' attacks have kept them off balance having denied them two countries in which to train.
If one were to take a narrow view of the battle of the buldge, one might think the Nazis had grown stronger and more powerful.
We are in a long fight that will have its ebbs and flows and it will be one by the side with the most determination.
How would precisely define the enemy? Is radical/militant islam too vague for you? How would you engage and enemy that runs and morphs?