What if?

Here’s my entry:

Let’s say there’s a terrorist attack by a well known terrorist group on a couple of significant targets in the US resulting in the loss of thousands of lives. A national security advisor (let’s call him Richard or maybe Clark) suggests going after the leader of this terrorist group. But another top defense official (let’s call him a Dick) thinks that the best way to respond is to invade a country where the terrorist group does not operate, ostensibly because that way we can contain terrorist activity within that country (let’s call it E-raq).

See, by going after and capturing or killing the leader of the terrorist group, Americans would be lulled into a false sense of security against terrorists. On the other hand, by taking unrelated military action, Americans will remain vigilant against terrorist threats because men and women who serve in the military are dying fighting an unrelated war.

Wait . . . you wanted a hypothetical, didn’t you? Nevermind.

Burma (Myanmar? whatever, some really bad country) wants to invite the nuclear inspectors in so they can assure the world that they do not have nukes but, oh lets say, Israel objects because …