Gosh, I'm so confused. Some of our representatives, [snark] in all their wisdom and experiences in the military [/snark], tell us otherwise. As does our president.

But when it comes down to, you know, reality it's pretty simple. As put by Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

"As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide the resources for the mission, the dialogue will be the dialogue, and the troops will feel supported,"

and Defense Secretary Robert Gates:

"I think they're sophisticated enough to understand that [Congress wanting to find the best way to win the war is] what the debate's really about"

Republicans: Either you're with the troops and willing to debate serious matters that actually affect their lives directly and daily (not only on even numbered years in November) or you're with the President and his men in congress. Which is it?

Now if and when we come to the grim conclusion that the 'surge' hasn't helped Iraq and/or Baghdad (which should be clear soon), and we start to cut funding and begin prying failed policy out of the presidents lame hands. Then it will probably hurt morale. But not hurt it on a level anywhere near the level of damage this ongoing embrace of failed policy will have on the military.