While I agree with some of this, I think "western dominated proxy governments" skates over a whole mass of internal complexities -- is Saudi Arabia western dominated? -- unless the whole toxic mess of modernisation is to be labelled "western" (for which good arguments could be made I suppose), and the Saudis are at the heart of things (funding Wahabist sects among other things).   Oil and the Israeli-Palestinian issue are in here too.   I think it could be argued that many of the nationalist Muslim groups may be interested in some kinds of "modernization" -- or repelled by them -- but "democratization" may be just another word for getting rid of the tyrants at the top (cf. Iran's original revolution and where it is now).   I think it is a bit much to say that the large majority of Muslim fighters are (i) nationalistic; (ii) modernizers; and (iii) democratic -- all three at once? Does he have an example? I can only think of the Egyptian Brotherhood, and they could only be very marginally considered democratic (one of three), rhetorically and practically.   The fact that virtually all of the main Muslim countries are run by tyrants does not necessarily mean that their opponents are benign nationalist, democratic, modernists.

yours,

Peter T.