Somewhat dated, but these excerpts from a RAND study are worth considering, and it helps clarify my point that we're looking at this through a Western bias that almost makes it impossible for us to imagine a government without institutions, yet the jihadists admit that they want a government that doesn't stand in between God and man, and they admit they don't know what that will look like, and the transition will be rough. You may also be right, and this could be their downfall.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_MG602.pdf

in their own words
Voices of Jihad, by David Aaron
Compilation and commentary

Jihadis can also be categorized as Islamists, political movements that want to bring the practice of Islamic law into government. Here, too, the jihadis are at the extreme end of a spectrum. At the moderate end is the Islamist-oriented government of Turkey, a NATO ally and a nation where secularism is enshrined in the constitution. Further along the spectrum, the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest opposition group in the Egyptian Parliament. And finally, there are the Islamists in Sudan who countenance the genocide in Darfur (of non-Arab Muslims), the Taliban, and the jihadis.
The following statement is indictative of the bias we start with when viewing these challenges, which makes one wonder why they thought that Muslims were going to embrace western civilization in the first place?

“Many writers, thinkers, scholars, and leaders who were advocating conformity with the values of western civilization and adherence to its norms and the complete adoption of its principles began rethinking their ideas and started to change their tone and replace it with a new more cautious and wary approach. The call for the return of Muslim society to the fundamentals and teachings of Islam became more powerful, paving the way for the re-islamisation of all aspects of life.
Below Naji references the competing political systems.

“The interest in understanding the rules of the political game and the political reality of the enemies and their fellow travelers and then mastering g disciplined political action through sharia politics and opposing this reality is not less than the importance of military action.” (Naji, 2004)
You can't more clear than this in a vague sort of way

“In other words, any political program will not succeed unless we can defeat the West militarily and culturally, and repel it from Muslim lands. At that time, it will not be difficult for the nation—with its great energies and vast wealth—to re-form its life in accordance with the fundamentals of Islamic Sharia.
This is where I think you and Bob are too quick to draw parallels to the West, even when claim to be above that. Highlights are mine.

The caliphate we are working to establish cannot be compared with
any known man-made political system.” (Ibrahim, 1984)
One of the unfamiliar characteristics of these writings is the way religious sayings and symbols are used to address issues that in the West would not take on such religious aspects. It is reminiscent of the way the communist movement in the 20th century discussed almost every political issue in terms of “class struggle,” and in much of the Christian era, secular problems were debated in the language of church doctrine. Similarly, jihadis address contemporary problems in terms of their religious ideology.
Do they desire to fight the West? Some do,

“Islam is an all-encompassing religion. It is a religion for people and for regimes. . . . Islam is the only alternative for the countries [of the world]. . . .

“Therefore, the crime of the tyrants in infidel [i.e. non-Muslim] countries, who do not rule according to Allah’s law, is an enormous sin . . . and we are obliged to fight them and initiate until they convert to
Islam, or until Muslims rule the country and he who does not convert to Islam pays Jizya.

“That is the religious ruling with regard to infidel countries and all the more so with regard to those who rule Muslim countries by way of the cursed law [i.e. a man-made law].” (al-Najdi, 2003b)