I know that militaries are awesome and that explosions are neat and that disastrous occupations are a cause worth fighting for, but I have just one question for Byron York:
I have a new piece today about last night's Democratic debate. In that debate, moderator Brian Williams of NBC News asked: "If, God forbid, a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists, and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?" Two of the three frontrunners in the Democratic race couldn't bring themselves to mention any military action at all.
Given that al Qaeda is the guest of no willing government, what country would you recommend using military action against in the event of new attacks? What if the base of operations for the attacks was a mosque in London? Would that warrant the same response as an attack that was planned at a mosque in Saudi Arabia?
Comments