I would advise this--in purely political terms--for two reasons. 

First because Americans do not like to lose.  As much as they lack the stomache for a protracted fight against a vile enemy, they lack the desire to admit defeat.

Therefore, the debate should be framed as a choice of winning or losing the war against the Murderous Mohammedan Jihadists who bombed the World Trade Center, two Embassies, a US Navy ship and flew planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon.

Or more precisely--a choice between defeating the Murderous Jihadists or quitting in cowardice.

This framing dovetails with what Lawrence Haas, Al Gore's former communications director, wrote earlier this week.

There is a price to be paid once people realize that choosing defeat was poor decision.

I was young when Bush Sr. ran for President in 1988, but I remember the issue of Dan Quayle's National Guard service.

I remember in 1992 how Clinton had to waste a lot of time and energy explaining his ROTC gambit.

And we all remeber "Ghengis Kahn" and CBS's memo gate.

It took four years for the American voters to swing from 70% approval of the war in Iraq to the current debates on declaring defeat and leaving.

It took five years for the American voters to swing from totally abadoning Vietnam to electing Ronald Reagan.

The public is indeed fickle.  They loved it in 2003 when we were winning.  They hate it now that we are losing.

Being the candidate that ensured the loss is not a strong position in the long term because funny things happen when looked at through the rearview mirror.

I call it the Crispen Effect.

In Henry V, the bard wrote:

"And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

Those "which hath no stomach to this fight" will not be celebrated.

I have seen no bumper stickers proudly proclaiming that a man dodged the draft.

But rarely a day goes by where I do not see the Vietnam Service Medal on a bumper sticker, patch or lapel pin.

As Haas writes, "The terrorists will challenge the United States in more places around the world while plotting to bring more turmoil to our homeland.

"At some point, the nation will recapture its spirit. Taunted by our enemies or attacked directly, Americans will look to the party that is ready to respond in kind."

Or to the politicians that are ready to respond in kind.

Politicians will be subject to a variation on the Crispen effect.

The exhuberance of defeat in Vietnam did not last very long.  An in our accelerating information age, it will be even shorter after a Iraq.

Those who shirked from fight will not be held up as heroes.

The second reason I would advise the Support the Troops, Let Them Win position is that it is a no lose situation--politically.

If the surge works, and it should, the candidate was right.

Even if it does not work and the American people forcefully pull the plug, the Jihadists are not going to cooperate.  They will still be there and blow something up again.

The American people, so eager to swing directions, will disavow their previous desire to pull the plug and be ready to resume the struggle.

At which point the candidate and party who wanted to keep up the fight is in a strong position.

The only way the defeat caucus wins elections in the long run is if the Mohammedan Jihadists suddenly decide to cease their murderous ways.

As long as there are even a handful of Jihadists subscribing to the views of Seyyid Qutb, they will blow something up.  And as this poll in England shows, there are more than a handful of them.
 

---