I guess the assumption is that the SAS wear slippers, then?
I don't think it's correct to characterise them as barbarous, warlike, or fragmented. Somewhere like Qatar is extremely advanced, is led by some exceptionally clever diplomats, and has remarkable national unity. It's still really quite an oppressive state and I'd agree their justice system is very flawed, but it's a lazy (albeit common) stereotype that all the Arab states are just a bunch of tribesmen running around with guns. There's a lot of money and a lot of development around the Arab gulf, and it's certainly not all going into war or papering over fragmentation. Some areas are much more similar to China; a growing middle class becoming contented by increased prosperity, which the central state is using as a carrot to avoid pressures for democracy.
I agree that a centralised ethno-religious Arab state is a fundamentally stupid and problematic idea, though, and we won't get rid of it anytime soon. I think we'll do far better sticking by counter-forces in the region (particularly the democratic ones like Kurdistan) than relying on continued military engagement though. Stability and having food to eat tend to be pretty good as forces to counteract the nutjobs, ISIS thrives on unstable areas where there are disaffected young men and where it's easy to ship in foreign brainwashed jihadi fighters.
And after all, if you look in the news for a place that's fragmented and warlike now, the most prominent example is Missouri...