Argument: The west is insulated by distance from Daesh

All western countries are insulated by distance from Islamic State. The closest western countries are Greece and Cyprus which is as close as the EU comes to Syria. But both are separated from Syria by the Mediterranean Sea. If Daesh were truly considered a threat of the kind that requires harsh national security responses then Europe could close its borders to the South and East – its borders with Turkey in particular. This has however not happened because the risk of terrorists (re-)entering Europe is not considered great enough to warrant such a response.

Candidate 1: "While Daesh may be focused on its war at home it is trying to attack those it is fighting where they are vulnerable. This is illustrated by the bombing of a Russian Metrojet Airliner leaving Sharm el-Sheikh which killed 224 by a Daesh affiliate [1] not long after Russia began bombing the Syrian rebels, and Daesh, in Syria. Such an incident may take place in the Middle East but undoubtedly affects those outside of the region. Daesh’s reach has however extended to the west with the 13th November attacks in Paris which resulted in 130 deaths across the city.

[1] AlJazeera, ‘Russia says plane in Egypt's Sinai brought down by bomb’, 17th November 2015, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/russia-plane-sinai-brought-bomb-151117081851335.html"
Candidate 2: "Distance does not matter in today’s world. Refugees from Syria are pouring in to Greece but also enter the EU much further afield through Hungary or Italy. Ideology has its influence regardless of distance meaning resulting terrorist attacks are as likely to happen in Paris as Nicosia and are as likely to be by those who have grown up in western Europe as those arriving from Syria itself. Thinking that distance insulates us from the threat posed by Daesh is as wrong as the belief that what a state does matters only inside its borders."
Candidate 3: "Daesh ideology and the possibility of terrorist attacks resulting from it is undeniably a problem. However the flow of fighters is mostly the other way; from Europe to Syria and Iraq, five to six thousand have made this journey. [1] It might therefore be said that Daesh is importing terrorism from the west rather than exporting it. We have no way of knowing how many terrorist attacks these fighters may have committed had they stayed in their home countries.

[1] Reuters, ‘Islamic State smuggling terrorists among the migrants? Unlikely, say experts’, EurActive.com, 28 August 2015, http://www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/islamic-state-smuggling-terrorists-among-migrants-unlikely-say-experts-317160"
Candidate 4: "There may be threats that can cause much greater damage than Daesh but these are neither immediate nor very likely. Nuclear war is undoubtedly a massive threat, but we succeeded in getting through 45 years of cold war without these weapons being used so the probability of the threat happening is low. Climate Change on the other hand is less a security issue than an environmental, economic, and societal one. Daesh on the other hand has already struck at western states with the Paris attacks, and has sucked large numbers of western citizens into a war against their own countries in Syria and Iraq. The threat from Daesh is therefore immediate, almost certain, and large."
Candidate 5: "No doubt Daesh does have long term territorial plans, but in practice Daesh is currently stuck in Iraq and Syria unable to conquer either. Yes Daesh being territorial makes it very unusual for a terrorist organisation. However this also provides a fixed target to defeat, and that defeat can be on foreign soil.

Daesh has a long shot chance of tearing up the borders of the Middle East. However as these borders have long been criticised as illogical and contrived this would not necessarily undermine the state system in the Middle East, it may even benefit from more cohesive populations with national boundaries. [1]

[1] Trofimov, Yaroslav, ‘Would new borders mean less conflict in the Middle East?’, WSJ, 10 April 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/would-new-borders-mean-less-conflict-in-the-middle-east-1428680793"
Candidate 6: "Daesh may have an ideology that is compelling to some people, but that number is comparatively tiny, nothing like the millions that were attracted to western ideology during the cold war. Daesh needs a population to consider itself a success and yet the population of Syria have voted with their feet [1] – they have fled to neighbouring countries not IS controlled areas. The United Nations has almost 4.3million registered refugees, [2] when the 7.6million internally displaced are included the numbers are far higher yet these people are not flooding into IS controlled areas. [3]

[1] Sky, Emma, ‘Standing idly by while the Middle East unravels is not an option’, The Guardian, 26 November 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/26/middle-east-iraq-syria-isis

[2] ‘Registered Syrian Refugees’ Syria Regional Refugee Response, updated 17th November 2015, http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

[3] ‘Syria IDP Figures Analysis’, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, July 2015, http://www.internal-displacement.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/syria/figures-analysis"

Distance does not matter in today’s world. Refugees from Syria are pouring in to Greece but also enter the EU much further afield through Hungary or Italy. Ideology has its influence regardless of distance meaning resulting terrorist attacks are as likely to happen in Paris as Nicosia and are as likely to be by those who have grown up in western Europe as those arriving from Syria itself. Thinking that distance insulates us from the threat posed by Daesh is as wrong as the belief that what a state does matters only inside its borders.
