Re: Sorry Cori, I respectfully disagree...
You made the claim that whether one believes the troops should be there or not should not be a consideration with regards to their safety. I'm merely pointing out that the troops being in a war zone is 'de facto' the primary source of danger to them, and therefore it is by far the first duty of army leaders to only deploy soldiers if absolutely necessary. I think that is incontestable.
Uncontestable as you feel it may be, it isn't relevant.
You seem to be assuming, also with zero evidence, that these deployments do have some benefit.
Wrong. There's plenty of evidence that they do have benefit. How many attacks has OBL launched this year? None, because he's dead. How many of his own people did SH gas this year with chemical weapons? None, because again, he dead. And so it goes.
But history has countless examples showing that terrorists are more easily beaten by political dialogue than by military force.
No it doesn't. It suggests that military force to eliminate the threat works best, then dialog with the few remaining survivors - see ISI, AQ etc etc for evidence. Even the IRA were militarily beaten - split top to bottom by intelligence assets and with limited remaining funding, they had no choice to to end their "war".