It’s going to be a tough couple of weeks for Britain’s Theresa May. With general elections scheduled for the beginning of next month — it seems that ISIS has left its comment on the British parliamentary system that insists on returning to power those who maintain a militarised foreign policy. Manchester is Britain’s third-most visited city and has a vibrant cultural scene. As the people there come to terms with the horror of the suicide attack that left 22 dead — all eyes are on the government. For brutality aside, what happened there represents a symbolic victory for ISIS, if, indeed, 22-year-old Salman Abedi was one of theirs. For the British-born Libyan was the first successful suicide bomber to have struck the UK since 7/7. All eyes are on the government, too, because of an admission by the Home secretary that Abedi had been on Britain’s intelligence radar. There have also been reports by US officials that he travelled to Libya three weeks prior to blowing himself up. This begs the question: was this an intelligence failure on the part of these two western governments? We must ask this because, again, when it comes to countries like Pakistan — failed terror plots such as Times Square are firmly viewed by the US in such terms. Indeed this was pointedly conveyed to the then president, Asif Ali Zardari, following details that Faisal Shehzad had travelled to Pakistan. It was here that he subsequently received training and funding under the lone wolf recruitment drive by certain militant groups. Predictably, May’s response to the people has stayed true to script. She has talked of never allowing the terrorists to win, of never allowing the British sprit to be broken. In doing so, she, like so many Pakistani leaders, is essentially placing the burden on the people, calling on them to be resilient. This is unfair to the extreme. The western imperial powers need to take responsibility for the direct consequences of militarised foreign policies. This was absent post-London bombings. This was absent at the anti-Islamist extremism moot in Riyadh over the weekend. And it is simply not good enough. Especially given that in logistical terms, there is no long-term plan. May’s deployment of some 5,000 troops is not sustainable. Nor is it any fair substitute for an honest conversation about the nexus between a militarised foreign policy and violent radicalisation. Thus far, it is the Mancunians themselves who have had the only response befitting multicultural Britain: the holding of inter-faith vigils to honour the dead, to say that such brutality was not in ‘their’ name. This is the spirit that must prevail. Despite the actions of whichever government of the day happens to be in power. *