One big improvement would be to build up a much larger number of special forces troops to operate these kinds of targeted attacks. They would be much more precise than missile attacks, killing far fewer unarmed women and children (see: the Bin Laden raid).
The trade off is that we would lose a lot more soldiers, but that would be a worthy trade off. These troops could be made up entirely of volunteers. If we're not willing to risk our soldiers, we're probably not confident enough that the enemy is a target worth attacking.
The U.S. military never should have resorted to bombing unarmed women and children in WW2 and beyond. It's time to stop even targeted strikes where unarmed women and children will knowingly be killed.
There's nothing wrong with attacking people who declare themselves deadly enemies through words or actions. But let's have our soldiers go into combat against them head-to-head (with much better gear, of course) and fight it out like an honorable and brave people should.
They're just as disillusioned as any one else.
The only people that drink the coolaid are a subset of the high school dropouts in the military, who actually need the military as the opportunity, singular. That system - even dropping out of high school - is basically tailored for non objective thinkers searching for a missing support system.
Polarized two-party politics makes some strange bedfellows.
This has been the case for a long time and those surrounding states have large Republican portions especially where many of the Universities are located in the middle of nowhere. But higher education is heavily Democratic, and doubly so in that area.
But the 2010s don't have much to do with aspirations in the intelligence community, mostly undermining those aspirations with the whistleblowing.
So even a tongue in cheek response like that is still trying to make a relation thats tough to make.