This morning, the western world, the Judeo-Christian world of Europe and America, is confronted with Islamic terror.
Manchester, England. A concert at Britain's largest indoor arena. Eighteen thousand in the crowd, mostly teens and children.
A man waits outside. He knows he can't get in, because he's carrying explosives, and a lot of metal to create shrapnel, maybe nails or nuts and bolts. He waits until the concert ends, knowing that a large crowd will soon be around him as the youngsters stream out. He detonates his bomb.
Shrapnel tears young bodies to pieces. Twenty-two dead at last count. Dozens injured. It’s a terror attack. Another terror attack.
The authorities have identified the bomber, but have not named him. The timing is surely not a coincidence. Our president is in the Mideast, calling out Islamic terror, branding it a "wicked ideology."
It is just two weeks to Britain's election.
And this is the start of the concert season. The Manchester attack is surely timed to make people think twice about being in crowds. And the target was children, designed to instill terror in parents and families as summer begins.
The Daily Telegraph reports there are 3,500 terror suspects in Britain. You can't surveil them all. So should the Brits round 'em up for questioning?
At some point, democracies have to figure out how to respond to endless, bloody attacks from within. At the moment, we are in defense mode. We try to prevent attacks beforehand, using intel and surveillance.
At what point does public opinion, and policy change? At what point does a democracy defend itself by pre-emptive attack?