Can Faith Beat Terror?

Over at Pajamas Media, Elizabeth Scalia suggests that the West will only win the war on terror when Western diplomats start talking about faith:

We should consider that Islamic terrorism may not be defeatable, except on its own terms, on the battlefield of the supernatural.

To secularists and avowed agnostics who work to expunge all religious language from governments, that idea is anathema. I doubt it makes many Christians or Jews happy, either. But the war on terror is as much about ideas and ideals as about security and strategy. If one side’s ideas are mayhem in service to transcendence and the other side is thinking about meetings and signed papers, then secular Western diplomacy is boxing with one glove.

I'm not sure where any of this leaves us, in any practical sense. Western diplomats don't have access to "supernatural battlefields," as far as I can tell. And what kind of language, specifically, are they suppose to use? Is Scalia suggesting that we co-opt Islamic rhetoric and theology in our public diplomacy to discredit the radical elements within Islam? Is she suggesting that we use Christian or Jewish teachings to condemn Islamic violence?

And why would this language do what other counter-terrorism measures fail to do?

It's all very vague. More than that, it's ironic. The ability to make arguments rooted in reason and evidence and not theology and clerical fiat strikes me as one of the hallmarks of Western civilization. Indeed, it's what distinguishes us from our radical enemies.