US journalist's murder confirms Islamic State's intentions
THE beheading of United States freelance photographer James Foley, now confirmed by US officials, recalls the similarly gruesome murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002.
It should act as a reminder, too, that Islamic State began as Al-Qaeda in Iraq and differs from Pearl's killers only in tactics.
Both proclaimed killings of American journalists were acts of propaganda designed to shock.
The leaders of Islamic State are not naive enough to believe that Mr Foley's death will persuade the US to end its air strikes against the group.
No more did Al-Qaeda's self-described Sept 11 architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed expect the US would meet the demand made on the video recording in which he beheaded Pearl, to release all prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
It is especially chilling that Mr Foley's executioner had a British accent - Mr Pearl's kidnapper, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, was also a British national, radicalised while in Bosnia.
At some point, these people return home, unless killed or arrested. They will return brainwashed and brutalised.
Both Al-Qaeda and Islamic State are best understood as nihilist organisations that target anyone who does not share their inchoate ideology, rooted in a warped interpretation of fundamentalist Sunni Islam: Their enemies range from moderate Sunnis to Shi'ites, Christians, Kurds, minority religious groups such as the Yazidi - and, of course, the West.
As ever, success is the best recruiter. Because, until recently, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and Islamic State left each other alone, focusing instead on taking territory from more moderate Sunni rebels in Syria.
Now, it has seized about a third of Iraq and, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, recruited 6,300 new fighters, about 1,300 of them foreign, last month alone. That raises the total to about 50,000 from 15,000 a year ago, the observatory said.
That is a higher estimate than those of most Western analysts, but the trend is clear. Also important is that this membership boost occurred before the US launched air strikes, so it was not in response to Western involvement.
Islamic State differs from Al-Qaeda in the priority it gives to building a caliphate in the heart of the Middle East, rather than attacking the West.
Yet this is a matter of priorities only: The ideology and methods are shared, and when Islamic State fighters go home, it defies experience and logic to believe they will not continue the fight there - one returnee has already attacked a synagogue in Belgium.
The question for US President Barack Obama and other Western leaders is not whether to fight Islamic State, but when.
Should it be now, when the group is not yet entrenched in Iraq, and when Mr Assad - finally - has begun to move against it in Syria? Or will it be once its fighters have established themselves in Iraq and Syria and move on to Jordan, as they moved on the Kurds?
If they were to succeed in Jordan, why not the Gulf states, where they already recruit and solicit donations? In Iraq and beyond, the nightmare prospect is of an Al-Qaeda that controls petro-states and enjoys the funds, space and leisure to train jihadis from around the world.
The tragic death of Mr Foley should not be seen as a signal to step back in the belief that this will be our fight only if we make it so. Mr Foley's killing just confirms what Islamic State is and what it intends.