Robert Fisk claims in The Independent that a civilized society won't necessarily defeat ilk like Isis. And indeed, that remains to be seen.
Another question is if he has the right definition of civilization. With it he means (in his own words) "illegally invading Iraq" and the like. I think it's not a good definition.
Civilized society has a distinct character. It respect individual rights, freedom of speech, rule of law. It provides income, absence of war and equality for all.
In some countries, the start of civilized society is even more basic.
With that I mean most people want to be safe. They want an opportunity to reach old age without being bombed. They won't starve to death before their time. They want to walk the streets without the certainty to be molested, murdered. To visit the mosque without blown to smithereens.
If Isis can give them that protection, it has a fair chance to withstand the same opponents that created the mayhem in the first place. If Isis can't, because it turns out to be a state like Hitler's Third Reich, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Nicolae Ceaușescu's Romania or Stalin's Soviet Union, it will perish. In that case there's no safety at all. Bombs will equal secret police and torture to the death. Extremists will be the neighbors spying on you and delivering you to the henchmen of the state.
If Frisk's Britain shows respect to every law abiding citizen, fights its religious extremists instead of looking away it will be a good start. If it doesn't fight foreign wars it shouldn't be fighting that's even better. If it will stand for the rule of law, democracy, free speech, gender equality, and sexual diversity, it even has a good chance of winning that war.
It's best to compare uncivilized barbarism with civilization, not with your own twisted idea of it.