This was an interesting article but the last part of the conclusion was ridiculus, especially from an economic point of view.

What kind of returns does an "investment" by the US taxpayer have that makes more Pakistani go to Mekka in comparision with the support for secular womens groups or for better rural infrastructure? What about the moral side effects of subventions for religious behaviour?

The author jumped to his conclusion thanks to wishful thinking. Investment decisions such as subventions are made after comparative cost analysis (in case of government also political and moral considerations) not after presenting one study that points something out that you would like to believe.

I usually enjoy this column, but the conclusion this time would have embarassed an undergrad.

It is incorrect for any modern state whether it is secular or otherwise to give subventions for any religious travel. Trying to do a cost benefit analysis of this sort of thing --without comparing other options which could lead to the same result- will lead to patently absurd results--Acharya