Glad the Review mentions Clausewitz, since his formula is more likely central to the subject matter. His recognition that politics is the bete noir for war, as theory and practice, points directly to the return to non-violence being restoring political practice; usually one thinks, different than that which brought about the war[or combat].
Governance is those mechanisms by which political practice takes place. That the US would fall short in this area does deserve more attention and WW II certainly is a model or cases for what, how, when these central tenets to non-violent political life need be achieved. Democracy is that value politically, to which the US subscribes as superior to all other forms of political values and practices. Its efforts and role are most important for the kind of law and order which needs to emerge from war[or combat]. How to bring it to those who have been denied it or not used to its practices remains a major, central post-war issue.
The author and the Review indicate at least two main starting points. One is civilian rule, and State Dept. would certainly be a major source as suggested, and rightly so. The second concerns military applications of Democracy and its rule. Organization within military forces specific to restoring domestic life and political practices are found in groups whose mission is civil-military relations. Sufficient attention to plans and resources can be part of any successful occupation and should be part of all over all war plannings.