Just a perspective on this sort of thinking. You don't abandon a military conflict just because soldiers die. That's what happens in armed conflict - people die. We kill them, they kill us.

IF the sole reason to "bring our boys home" is that they are being killed, the we ought to look at all issues where people die, and eliminate those situations. Start with driving cars. 115 people die each day in America from car accidents. By comparison, fewer die in military conflict.

That is not to diminish the service of those in the military nor is it meant to diminish the loss of life. Anytime someone dies in the military it's a sad loss. But we don't pull out of conflicts because of deaths. It's bad policy.

In the same way, we don't close down police stations just because officers are killed in the line of duty. We know that is a likely possibility and we accept that as the cost of freedom.

Regardless of soldiers dying, the reason for pulling our troops out of a military conflict are rather simple:

Is it a noble cause? Is it necessary and will it bring about a greater good? Should we have been there in the first place? Are we fighting in a way that just sustains conflict or are we trying to defeat the enemy? Do those for whom we fight (like those in Afghanistan) do their share of fighting for their own freedoms?

If the cause isn't noble, or if the conflict is simply unnecessary and we should never have been there in the first place, we should leave.

If we are fighting a conflict that only keeps the enemy at bay, perhaps we should not be there.

If those that live in the country where our soldiers are fighting won't participate in their own "freedom fight" it might be a worthless cause in the long run.

No one likes to see soldiers die. But death is part of the picture of military conflict. As any military commander or for that matter, ask any soldier. They understand this fact in the business of "war."