One of the common talking points for Bush’s supporters — his few remaining supporters — is to drag out letters from soldiers in Iraq. The soldiers are determined to win, so we should stay, goes the argument.

I have no doubt that this sentiment is common and genuine. But that is always the case with soldiers, even in disaster. When General Pickett’s shattered division returned to Robert E. Lee, many wanted to try again. They were sure they could do it. They did not want to have failed him, to have failed the Cause or, most importantly, to have failed their fellow soldiers.

Lee had to be smarter and he was. He had to see the army in the cold analytical terms that a ground soldier can’t — that a dead soldier is a sunk cost. That killing the living will in no way justify the fallen.

I’m not saying we need to pull of Iraq or that we have had a calamity even approaching Pickett’s charge. Hell, Picket lost twice as many men that day as we’ve lost in the entire war. No, what I’m saying is that our soldiers’ desire to stay in Iraq does not automatically mean we should. They always want to win, they always think they can. That’s what makes them better people than, well, shitheads with blogs.

But the President needs to decide his strategy based on the situation, not their sentiment. If you want us to stay in Iraq, you need to make a legitimate argument, not cower behind the courage of our soldiers.