I have a fundamental problem with this criticism of foreign policy.
A country's foreign policy cannot (and must not) be decided on the policy of 'don go there they might bomb us'. It's fundamentally a wrong, unjust and unsustainable policy.
I don't think that's quite a fair portrayal of what Corbyn is saying.
The argument is that intervention kills civilians. Intervention leads to resentment against the west, widening the pool of potential recruits to radicalisation. Intervention leads to broken societies, leaving extremists to fill the vacuum. Intervention, in short, rarely delivers on it's aims and does much harm to innocents in the target country and elsewhere.
Of course, one result of that is an increase in terrorism - generally, and perhaps specifically against the interventionists, but mostly infact again within the target of the intervention.
Corbyn isn't saying we shouldn't intervene because they might bomb us: he is against intervention in almost all cases, and for many reasons - and on this particular area of policy, I think genuinely the main reason being civilian casualties within the target country.
The discussion this week of course starts at the other end: why have we been bombed? Therefore it seems as though his focus is on 'stop intervening to prevent terror'. But he has a million reasons for opposing intervention. I agree with some, but not all of them. But let's not distort his reasoning.