Nay.
It is not the US or the UK's place. What Obama is doing is plainly unconstitutional...and no congressional approval...smh. The last Iraq war was a mistake, but at least had it been carried out to its ultimate aim, with the proviso of an inclusive government, things might have been different.
It's a civil war. Unfortunately, and as harsh as it sounds, let's stay out. Of Iraq, and of Syria too.
That means no "boots on the ground"; no military funding, or arms, for any of the belligerents; and most certainly no military air-strikes, which are surefire ways to increase resentment of the west, further setting back relations in the region.
The military advisors need out pronto...because it is developing a very similar pattern to the Vietnam war...ie thousands of military advisors (thanks...JFK
), then airstrikes...then "boots on the ground". Financial sanctions against ISIS could help, but that's as far as I think the West needs to go. With Obama choosing to follow this course of action, it makes it much harder for any future US President to get out of Iraq. And Obama had just got the US out of Iraq...and is getting them out of Afghanistan.
The UK has done enough meddling in the middle east in the past 100 years...and this is the result of forcing completely arbitrary borders between people. This conflict goes back to the Sykes-Picot agreement...and a failure to deliver on promises made to the Arab people after WWI for an Islamic state led by a Caliph. More meddling is more chance for blowback.
By all means, if Saudia Arabia and the other Muslim countries in the region want to intervene...then fine...but this stand has to be made by the west.