
Given deep commitment that many fighters have to their idea of martyrdom and the Caliphate, then the few who chose to leave and return home will mostly be the disillusioned and the unfaithful. These individuals will have to escape in secret to avoid execution on charges of spying or desertion. It is these that will be of most use to Western intelligence and deradicalization programs. ASIO must have considered this and informed Abbott who however insists they are the most dangerous. Ones that haven’t left remain a closed book and it’s up to us as a community that will or wont determine their radicalisation. Abbott’s public war announcement is not going to help our security. Abbott’s continual TV appearances can only exacerbate things.
The bottom line is that the Islamic State group has learned the importance of operational security and the dangers of allowing western intelligence contact with its members. That is not to say that there will be no Islamic State-backed attack plots targeting the West and that western governments need not worry. But the selection of suitable operatives to carry out attacks will be highly problematic for the group, leaving only a tiny pool of possible options. Its commanders will have to choose individuals with a proven track record of competence, loyalty, independence and determination.Gauging those characteristics without exposing the individuals concerned to operational information will be very difficult. The Islamic State group is unlikely to take a risk in most cases and will probably only attempt to release a few trusted individuals for uncomplicated suicide missions.
The challenges of making and deploying suitable bombs without detection back in their home countries will probably be beyond most of these few. So, while the threat is real and must be taken seriously it must also be seen in context; one that is not as numerically great as the assessments of officials and experts have so far indicated.Failure to put the threat into context has dangers of its own. Firstly, the Islamic State group monitors the media and will be encouraged by the fear-mongering aspect of the debate. It might be tempted to amplify its terror impact by encouraging attacks in the West, having so far been regionally focused. So what the logic of Abbott’s public alarm is he making a public invitation to for ISIL to do more?
Abbott has achieved more headlines announcing a threat that, even if it materialises, will have a transient impact on the country compared with the Budget, Health ,Education and Pensions. Abbott and his cabinet aren’t stupid they know this and realise how problematic these issues are for them. It appears preferential for Abbott to avoid the serious internal issues and go down the path of raising a terror alarm despite the probability of radicalising more locals and inviting the further interest of ISIL.




You must be logged in to post a comment.