I didn't use a question mark because I meant for the sentence to be a paraphrase of some of the article's content. Rhetorical questions are just that. I will say more about this content but first want to say this:

Our MSM is not building an informed electorate. Sometimes it tells outright lies to influence public opinion. Most of the time, however, it gets the results it is looking for by merely oversimplifying a narrative or event. How people get referred to as complicit or not in an action or the events leading up to an action is the principal method for taking discrete elements and blending them into an easily digestible smoothie that tastes a certain way.

I take your point that the Armstrong piece reflects a world view that mirrors the way the "solidarity" world-view stabs fingers at the defects of other people while ignoring its own. I hear Armstrong's hint of self-awareness of this by calling it a "one-pager." But my pursuit of different points of view than my own has caused me to lose interest in such complete explanations. More mirrors won't increase the number of who are well informed.

Now, back to complicating things. When Armstrong said, "None of this means a thing and won't until we start to hear about the role of Wahhabism in all this, where it comes from and who spreads it", I nodded head in agreement and rang the cowbell. The role the Wahhabi sect played in the formation of the Saudi state and continues to do so today is key to going beyond the most superficial accounts of the region. But the buzz kill was only a few words away when Armstrong says, Washington and its allies cannot support jihadists in one place and expect to control them in another. I suppose he could be making a sly reference to the fact the U.S. is entangled with Saudi Arabia but the casual generality more directly brands all Sunni Muslims carrying a gun as being the same people with the same goals. You don't have to travel to Moscow for this smoothie. The same product is available throughout the lands of the "solidarity" theater. While Saudi Arabia has made great efforts in blood and money to distribute its interpretation of Islam, it is also at war with the fruit of its labor. Al Qaeda and Daesh are at war with the house of Saud. To have the Wahhabi stand for all Salafi is a mistake. To have all Sunni stand with the Salafi is a mistake. If people want to talk like Bernard Lewis and argue how it is all one dish, that is fine. They should knock themselves out. But there are real people in real time that cannot be accounted for by that reckoning. Those real people are the ones fighting or running away from the conflict.

Here is another complication to consider. The expansion of the Salafi sect in Russia can be closely correlated to the groovy way Moscow dealt with Islam over last several decades. (longer than that but that is too complicated) The article is rather dry and was selected because dipping from the sources narrating the Sufi end of the stick would change the subject being discussed on the level of Kipling's "Great Game"

A parting observation:
Perhaps Armstrong's observation that the regime change programs embarked upon by previous Coalitions of the Willing lack excellence should be compared to how the USSR taking over Afghanistan was not the best thing that ever happened to all involved.