« on: August 30, 2014, 03:23:10 pm »
No, not really.
They're talking about preventing the carnage being visited on Iraq and Syria coming to UK shores, because ISIS is "determined" to attack the UK. By which they mean, our Kurdish allies have told us ISIS is determined to attack the UK. Admittedly, the Kurds got it right on the ISIS offensive in North Iraq, but then so did many other people, who didn't exactly have access to any kind of privileged knowledge. And given the Kurds really really want our assistance...well, you can see how that might give them incentives to overstate UK national interests in the region.
And there are a worrying amount of ISIS fighters from the UK, possibly 100-500 of them, depending on who you believe. At the same time, ISIS kinda has its hands full. A full blown military campaign by the UK could possibly change the strategic calculus, making an attack on the UK a more sensible option. But ISIS are fighting the Iraqi, Syrian and Iranian governments, the Russians also have a hand in the conflict, the Saudis and Qataris are backing their enemies in the Islamic Front, there's the Jordanian border, expanding their presence in Lebanon, and of course Israel...all I'm saying is, ISIS has a lot of enemies.
Which is not to say some idiots may not come back here after a crash course in IED construction and chopping off the infidel's head 101 and decide to cause trouble on their own. That's what idiots do. But I very much doubt al-Baghdadi will expressly give an order that London must be attacked unless we start dropping cruise missiles on his safe houses or something.
Which we may end up doing. The US is apparently leaning on Parliament to back a joint Iraq-Syria bombing campaign against ISIS. Perhaps this is a "preventative measure"...but given Parliament hasn't even voted on such action yet, deciding ahead of time that it will happen and taking steps to prevent blowback...well, it wouldn't look good. MPs don't like being second-guessed.