Do you not think it'd have been a bit different if ISIL were, instead, Chechen guerillas from 1999?
Sure. It would also be different if ISIL were made of Irish milkmaids.
1. Yes, were ISIL made of caucasian hill-folk with that especial combination of bellicosity and banditry that European hill-country types bring to the field of battle, it would be different. (Andrew Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forrest were unavailable for comment.)
2. Your point pretty much holds for all Arab fighting organizations. None are particularly robust. Heck, goofballs in the US thought the Israeli Army was made of super-bad-ass folk...until we fought an Arab army in 1990 and got a taste. (Yes, some in the US still hold to these views, hence the fetishization of "Israeli" this & that.
PT Barnum's adage applies. ) Also, my Turkish acquaintances don't exactly have much respect for Arab folks and their armies, either.
=============
My point is not that ISIL or any Arab army is particularly effective. It is that those that comprise it may be evil rat bastards and still be courageous. Evil and courage are not mutually exclusive. And just because a particular organization gets the stuffing beat out of them does not mean the individual soldiers are cowards. I think the evidence of ISIL members dying in battle proof enough that they were willing to risk death to achieve their objectives. That is proof enough for me that many of them are not cowards.
FTR, I have no sympathy for ISIL. Were all slaughtered and left for the scavengers I would not lose any sleep.