I think that&#x27;s a silly suggestion that lends a bit to much creedence to the concept of ISIS as a medievalist movement. The fact that they push a fundamentalist ideology doesn&#x27;t mean they don&#x27;t see heathen technology as a useful tool. They have proven to be quite resourceful at co-opting things they see as instrumental in growing and maintaining their power.<p>His post also seems to suggest that ISIS derives their control over the people in their territory through popular support. This is not the case. Most of the populace is simply trying to survive ISIS rule, as is typically the case in totalitarian regimes. Sadly, the reality of the situation in Syria and Iraq is that there aren&#x27;t really alternatives the people find worthy of risking their necks to rally behind. And the brutality of the official regimes and those regimes&#x27; allies, combined with the brutality of ISIS, preclude better alternatives from presenting themselves.<p>And none of this can be divorced from the geopolitical situation. The calculus of nuclear non-proliferation, our eternal chess matches with Russia and China, and energy politics have shaped our strategy from the start, and largely led to the outcomes we&#x27;ve seen. If not for these things, we may have supported a partitioning of Iraq early on, knowing that the Arab Shia portion would have naturally aligned itself with Iran, an independent Kurdistan would have deeply upset our Turkish allies, a new Arab Sunni land would have been a big question mark, and the cities and resources would have been very difficult to allocate.<p>But now, such a partition seems like it wouldn&#x27;t have been the worst idea in the world, and has largely de facto happened under very poorly controlled circumstances.