There's been a very stimulating series of articles written by JoeUser bloggers with regards to the opinions of civilians on the sidelines making claims about what the military should and shouldn't do.  I missed some of the first ones (particularly a great one by Texas Wahine) so here's the series so far:

We need to help those Iraqis! (a civilian frustrated with those who oppose the war)

If you love war so much, why not go fight it? (frustration with non-serving civilians who seem to glorify war)

Why aren't you fighting in Iraq? (Bakerstreet responds to the above)

I dont' have to serve to support (same)

Are you a pasty pile of goo? (are people being overly defensive?)

One-Upmanship on JoeUser (whose opinions matter more?)

As a professional jerk, I'm a lot less sensitive to the feelings of soldiers or pro-military or anti-military people.  Simply put, I support the war. I support the job the military is doing. The job. Our soldiers are doing a job. I don't really care whether they like the job or not any more than I care whether individual policemen or firemen like the job they're doing. I only care that they do their job. 

That said, I can totally sympathize with soldiers and their families who see arm-chair generals, comfy at home, who treat warfare as little more than a sport for their amusement. I have seen this attitude in many pro-war people, a total disconnect from the hellish, dangerous, and staggeringly difficult times our soldiers face.  I can totally get what they're saying.  But I don't want to be lumped into that.  I haven't served in the military. I probably never will.  But I feel I do have an appreciation for the job our soldiers are doing even if I cannot even imagine what they've gone through.  Therefore, I make no bones that I support the job they've done.

Then again, being a jerk, I don't have any particular sympathy for the Iraqis. I would support bringing troops home IF there was the understanding that if Iraq fell into terrorist hands we would go in there and overthrow what they'd cobbled together.  Winning against terrorism doesn't mean we have to set up some sort of peaceful democratic state. Not in my opinion anyway. There's any number of countries that are in states of near anarchy.  What we have to work against are states with significant financial and material assets who support terrorism or who allow terrorists to openly organize and plan.  Hence, while I agree us leaving Iraq would likely result in a non-democratic government run by Shiites who oppressed minorities or even lead to civil war, I don't really care. I'd rather have our soldiers home.  IF that oppressive government started to support anti-US policies, pursue WMDs, sponsor terrorists, then we could go in again and take them out.

Of course, many of you reading what I just wrote probably are shaking your head at my naivete. Because you're right.  The US cannot (contrary to what some left-wing fringe Europeans think) just send the military in on a whim to overthrow countries we didn't like. Not until I'm emperor anyway.    Therefore, the most balanced course of action is probably to stay until there's enough infrastructure in place that Iraq can move forward on its own and draw down troops gradually as they can.