We can, with our technology, our material and our enviable financial position, intervene on the right side. We can fight the aggressors, the fascists, and rescue Iraq from the scourge of Islamist violence. But this is only possible in coalition, in alliance. Leaving the Kurds to fight the Islamic State alone is immoral; abandoning Iraq is equally bad; and letting the United States shoulder the burdens of internationalism alone fails the very definition of the term.
If British foreign policy in the Muslim world can be seriously revised, and a genuine effort by the government not to modify Islam by funding embarrassingly unpopular 'Muslim' think-tanks and self-professed scholars, only then can Britain, as a nation, begin to work towards a practical solution in tackling extremism.
I can't think of anywhere that would have been less appropriate as a venue for this week's Nato summit than the UK. A United Kingdom that within the next couple of weeks may become shatteringly disunited... Inward-looking, backward-looking, suspicious of its neighbours: everything that Nato is meant not to be. And this at a time when the world is a more dangerous place than it's been in decades. So why are Western leaders - because it's not just David Cameron - so dismally unable to confront the dangers?
If we continue to feed this monster it will become much more problematic to defeat. Our leaders and the public who oppose military intervention now will only be repeating the mistakes we made in the 1930's by not stopping the Nazis before they became too powerful to stop quickly and effectively causing catastrophic loss of life totaling 60 million civilians and soldiers.
Mohammed Nasser was far more successful academically, after finishing his studies at Sixth Form College at St. Charles, he became a business undergraduate at Roehampton University. His friends and relatives described him as being a joy to be around. A cousin, who wanted to remain anonymous, said he came from a devout family and always knew right from wrong...