The Mongols were not barbaric in the sense of being disorganized. They were barbaric in their cruelty. So whether they were jackbooted thugs depends on your definition of jackbooted thugs. Which is a pretty silly position to be in.
I would argue that this discussion has now reached such a point of vagueness that for all you know you could be saying the same things, and that since any actual disagreement between you is smaller than the (enormous) imprecision of each of your statements, all that's left driving this is your animosity to one another.
Sure, if we take the accounts of medieval writers faced with looking at the tip of their spears. My point is that the same point of view would hold true for a Gaul facing the cruelty of the Roman legions. Neither representation is entirely accurate.
Being that the advancement of both commerce, trade and wealth under Rome and Khan are very similar, and collectively in fact point to the successes of warrior societies, the post author's point is rather shaky. To suggest that empires that lasted longer than any modern democracy has are backward and unstable is simply wrong.
The main issue I have is that we seem to forget that we're still dominated by a society (the US) that is very much a product of the warrior ethos. To say that we are somehow superior to an Arab world that still practices an outward version of "Thar" while completely disregarding that we ourselves have done the same - nay, actually denying it - is so shortsighted that it can only be described as racist.
I would argue that this discussion has now reached such a point of vagueness that for all you know you could be saying the same things, and that since any actual disagreement between you is smaller than the (enormous) imprecision of each of your statements, all that's left driving this is your animosity to one another.