It's this kind of thing that the government needs to defend, or be capable of, albeit I'll conceed that a husband who thinks his honour has been offended by a wife and decides that the only reasonable course of action left to him is to cut her head off (my guess incidentally) isn't necessarily an easy one
What I'm saying is that Cameron is seemingly looking in the wrong direction (again) whilst he's now talkign about air strikes. In the first case the American's have been carrying them out for weeks whilst the French have also been supplying the kurds. Britain chucking a couple of hapless Tornados into the fray ain't going to make any difference, nor is it going to increase our security one iota
One Cameron might be getting increasingly nervous about I suspect is that the French could temporarily be displacing the UK as the most active allie in Europe (now there's a gap for Alex Salmond to exploit
, a Scottish airforce?)
What I'm increasingly worried about is how ill equipped we would be to defend the home front against 100 simultaneous suicide attacks, or even violent low grade attacks (machettes, knives or small arms). We've seen what's happened in Mumbai and Nairobi. A dozen going mad with automatic weapons aren't quickly dealt with and can cause chaos before they're shot
The army has been cut back to bugger all, and the police have now taken to advising victims to investigate their own crimes. I think Cameron needs to start visionising a few things and scenario scoping and when you do a very different picture emerges that starts to verge towards civil war. Admittedly this a few decades away yet I think, but I don't think we have the depth in our institutions to defend a shock attack at the moment from what is likely to be an increasingly weaponised society by then
It starts to open up things like national service, private security firms, and even people's militias (operating under a license from the big society)