State Department's Marie Harf demonstrates her naivete with suggestions on how to defeat Isis

If you haven't heard this story, then here's a link that will sum it up:

Marie Harf on CNN
Marie Harf Criticism

But if you don't want to read/watch that then here is a brief summary: Marie Harf, as the Deputy Spokesperson for the Department of State, has an interview in which she said that (and I'm paraphrasing here) we [the US] can not win this war against Isis with violence alone; that we needed to approach it from a social perspective too. After which she suggests that we find them jobs.
She receives a whole bunch of criticism, to which she responds by having another press conference where she states that we [the US] need to find a way to help these people get jobs or do something else instead of picking up guns. And follows it with telling her critics that such an idea may be "too nuanced for them."

To begin with she's calling us, the people of the United States of America, or at least anyone who disagrees with her, stupid. Take offense! I certainly do.

The concept to me is certainly not too nuanced. You[Harf] are suggesting that we find and enact social reforms to deter people from joining terrorist groups. The mere fact that this is your [the White House's] suggestion demonstrates a massive naivete. People don't join terrorist groups because they are poor, have no jobs, or have no other alternatives. People join terrorist groups out of ideology. People join because the information they read or exposed to create a vision of the world that they can not find fault with. When it's coupled with religion it has a backbone of honor and justice. Having available jobs or a better economy will not make any difference whatsoever.

It's possible (much like cults) the heads of the terrorist organiazation do not believe in the ideology, but as long as the the terrorist organization is successful, why would they leave for such opportunities? Would a king rather work in a mail room?

The solution is OBVIOUS. It was always obvious. The fact that I see the solution instantly, but the President has to hold a conference to "figure it out" is infuriating. I would like the leaders of this nation to be smarter than me.

As I said, the terrorist groups use ideology to recruit members, however most of that ideology is a distortion of the truth or propaganda. If you want to destroy a terrorist group, you kill the "charismatic" leaders and bombard the "sheep" followers with counter-propaganda.
I told the solution was obvious, what's NOT obvious is how to accomplish such a task. But you still have to understand the issues first; you can't just spark "bleeding-heart" rhetoric, with no definitive plan.

And let's not forget why Isis is really doing this....which is......because we are christians and jews, not muslims??

EXACTLY. How can you create counter-propaganda unless you know what the original propaganda is stating?
When muslim extremists crashed plains into the twin towers, I felt, and heard others say, "why did they do this?" Or more appropriately, "What did I do to them, that sparked such a reaction?" Eventually I came across a documentary, The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear. In this documentary, we find out that a small group of extremely religious muslims felt that other muslims weren't true muslims (weren't following the muslim faith as true believers). The started bombing various institutions to "wake them up" to true muslimism, but this did not work. So then they blamed the Western influences (us/U.S.) for tainting the muslim religion.
I don't know if this is Isis' "philosophy," but I don't hear anyone talking about what's motivating them.

Will religious bigotry ever end?
hrmph...probably not.