[Plutarch]

Arianna Huffington? Why is anyone talking about what she has to say?

[The FRugitive]

Yea, what's up? This is the Free Republic! We will not tollerate questioning Republican administrations!

[alloysteel]

Arianna Blatherington is confusing the ends with the means. She is worrying about the intermediary situation, on the way to trying to improve the situation. Yes, some casualties will be incurred, this is the face of conflict. But WHY should the casualties either be avoided, at any cost, or should these same casualties be accepted in the name of a greater good?

Saddam is a potential danger, and one that destined only to grow, unless steps are taken to defang the rattlesnake. The analogy goes much further, in that going after al-Qaeda, is like taking the rattles off the tail of the snake, but the snake is still live, and with an even worse attitude than before. The head of the snake must be smashed, and the corpse made non-poisonous.

[Redcloak]

I got about 1 1/2 paragraphs in and couldn't take it anymore.

NOTE TO ARIANNA: We aren't talking about casualties for the same reason we aren't talking about what varieties of MREs the troops prefer. Neither is important at this stage.

One does not begin with hand-wringing over casualties when one considers using their military. It's assumed that there will be casualties; it's a natural part of war. (And since diplomacy is war conducted by other means, it's also a part of "peace".) Blabbering on about casualties at this point in the game is of no value whatsoever.

Though, if one insists upon discussing the matter, there is this to ponder: Which is less appealing to you, Arianna, soldiers killed in battle or civilians killed in terror strikes?

As you ponder this, remember to use a good, quality hand lotion so that you don't get any callouses.