Beyond concern for the wellbeing of a vulnerable and misguided young man, one thing is clear from the Islamic State propaganda recruitment video featuring 17-year-old Bankstown jihadi Abdullah Elmir.
The terrorist group's baiting of western governments into using maximum military force against it reflects its core strategic aim: to draw more non-Muslim nations into direct, on-the-ground engagement.
IS knows this would be likely to fracture unity among its opponents and help shore up its popular support in the region.
As such, Australia is wise to retain strong safeguards against overreach in its engagement in Iraq, and to stop short of committing ground troops, at least for the time being.
"From Australia's perspective we do not envisage sending ground forces. We have not been asked to, we have not offered to, so we do not envisage that being part of our arrangement with Iraq," Ms Bishop said last week.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi concurred on the weekend, saying "additional international effort is helpful because we lack some systems, but we do not depend on this assistance fully. There will be no ground troops in Iraq. This is my decision and this is the decision of the Iraqi government."
IS has to be disrupted, stopped and destroyed by Iraqi troops, Kurdish peshmerga forces and Muslim militias.
There may come a time when western governments need to consider actions beyond air strikes, military advice and humanitarian aid – but the bar must be set very high indeed.
The Iraqi government doesn't want it. More direct western involvement might provoke an Arab backlash. Anti-IS Muslim militia could coalesce around the terror group. More civilians would be drawn into the conflict. And western forces would probably have to oust President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, with all the regional ramifications that entails.
Even a limited role for Australia in Iraq is proving difficult.
Defence force vice-chief Ray Griggs told a Senate estimates hearing on Wednesday that Australian jets had flown 56 missions against IS in Iraq but only three had engaged targets. An Australia official embedded in the command structure wisely issued a so-called "red card" when the missions risked civilian casualties or overstepping Australia's defined role.
The air strikes have also begun forcing IS fighters into civilian areas for cover, reflecting the growing risks of the conflict.
The Abbott government, with Labor support, has decided to allow 200 Australian special forces troops to support and advise the Iraqi army.
While doubts remain over the legal basis of that contribution, Vice-Admiral Griggs said he was satisfied the "arrangement" would provide "all the necessary immunities and protections before deployment".
He asserted "every one of our people has the inherent right to self defence" and insisted they would not be involved in any independent combat operations.
But any incident involving Australia will be used by IS for propaganda.
Air drops falling into wrong hands is also possible. A US military airdrop of weapons meant for Kurdish fighters reportedly fell into the hands of IS forces near Kobane near the Syria-Turkey border on Monday.
The battle for Kobane looms as crucial. Some signs are positive. Turkey has overturned a long policy of not aiding Kurds, announcing on Monday it would allow Iraqi Kurdish fighters to reinforce fellow Kurds in Kobane.
In northern Iraq, the US-led air strikes have forced IS troops to split up and change tactics, too.
But some in the defence community believe Washington is not providing enough resources for intelligence and reconnaissance to ensure bombings strike IS hard without hitting civilians. The United Kingdom has reportedly authorised spy planes and armed drones to fly surveillance missions over Syria.
While that will help, the terrorist group still controls Iraq's second-largest city, Mosul.
Given the slow formation of the new Iraqi government and the defeats of its army in the past six months, hopes are faint that Iraqi forces on the ground can repel IS quickly, if at all.
Amid such doubts and impatience, the temptation will be for western governments to rush in ground forces.
Governments should pursue all options – including disruption of IS finances - before considering ground troops.
Any move towards ground deploying Australia ground forces in Iraq or extending our actions to Syria will fracture bipartisan support for the fight against IS and probably erode public support as well.
