Tigerhawk Develops Iraq Metrics

Tigerhawk takes the NYT to task for not really understanding what the Iraq war is about.

First, we needed to re-establish out[sic] credibility in the Arab world, which
credibility was squandered by virtually every president since Jimmy Carter. This
could only happen by brining[sic] the war into the heart of the Arab world and taking
casualties killing jihadists. We are doing that every day.

I don't know where to begin with this...first the worst: Tigerhawk would have us believe that "taking casualties" is a good thing? Is this some kind of amateur spin-doctoring? I suppose in a way it justifies our losses, but what is it saying to the troops? Go over there and die, so we can look tough? It is an interesting take though, the idea that taking casualties benefits our war on terror. The question is: how many casualties do we need to prove we care more about (whatever our current goal is) than our soldier's lives?

Speaking of "lost credibility". That's a new reason for the war-- at least not one I've previously heard (and face it, we've heard a lot). This "strike at the heart" mentality is new too. If we were at war with the Arab world it would make sense, but I thought we were a bit more specifically after a single rogue state. Don't you need a particular reason to invade a particular country? Seriously, if you want to make the case that invading Iraq will protect us from 9/11 type hijackers (most were Saudi, none were Iraqi) you need a little more substance.