Over at Chez Drum, there's a bit of an argument going on about "supporting the troops". As seen in this piece by Washington Monthly writer Spencer Ackerman, there are a lot of soldiers who think that the public shouldn't "just support the troops [but] support the mission". The soldiers need to go, but want to stay. The argument rages over what exactly "supporting the troops" should entail.
Me, I think this is due to missing a few words there. If you support the opinion of the troops, there's a point to be made there. If, however, you support the interests of the troops, then the Democratic argument is perfectly sound. Soldiers on the group may disagree, but as the Ackerman piece points out, they aren't necessarily getting the whole story, and might be interpreting short-term tactical victories for strategic ones.
At the end of the day, I don't even think that the soldiers in question will resent a decision to pull out, if made honestly and for sound strategic reasons. These things happen. I do agree with Ackerman, though, that honesty is key. Unfortunately, that's exactly what makes it unlikely.