Battle for Britain on two fronts

A writer in The New York Times, reacting to the horrific execution of a second American journalist by Islamic jihadists, remarked “Isis is awful, but it is not a threat to America’s homeland.” Nobody could say that about Britain. For years the jihadist mentality has been alive among some young British-born Muslims, and it has led hundreds of them to go abroad to fight their supposed enemies. In both recent cases the apparent “executioner” – for which read cold-blooded murderer – had a London accent.

So the British Government is faced with a battle on two fronts. The domestic one is the bigger priority. The danger here is that young Muslims may go to the Middle East with only vague intentions, but may come back ready to engage in terrorist attacks against British targets. The problem is not new. The statute book is weighed down with measures designed to stem domestic terrorism, and implementation of these laws by police and security agencies has produced a steady flow of arrests, trials and convictions. The beheading of hostages, while adding a new dimension of horror, does not change the nature of the threat.

Indeed, many decent young Muslims must have been repelled by what they saw or heard. The danger is that the measures most likely to satisfy an anxious public are not necessarily the most likely to work. Border control is one issue: making sure that potential jihadists do not leave Britain, and that those that return are identified and if necessary prosecuted. Yet the immigration service is still one of the most dysfunctional parts of the entire machinery of government. The decision two years ago to wind up the Border Agency and bring its work under direct Home Office control was belated recognition of the problem, but not a solution. And there are further massive cuts to its funding in the pipeline, a policy which begins to look positively dangerous. Already, the Government cannot in practice stop would-be jihadists leaving the country and cannot stop them coming back, as many are believed to have done.

Proposals to withdraw passports or even citizenship from some of them, though symbolically satisfying, mean little if the individuals involved cannot be identified as they come and go – nor traced once they return to their home communities.

Meanwhile, government cuts have decimated the work of the Prevent programme that was trying to root out extremist ideas in local communities, often in partnership with local Muslim organisations. The programme needs a thorough overhaul, yet it signifies how important it is to work with responsible Muslim communities and their leaders, and not to alienate them by tarring them all with a jihadist brush.

Making concessions to ruthless hostage-takers only makes them more ruthless. The point may soon come when it would be right for Britain to join America in air strikes against Isis, despite the threat to execute a British hostage next. What the British do not do is cower, and a key part of defeating the jihadists is to show them that.