I have to admit

Phillipines Capitulation in Iraq Widely Questioned

I'd like to see peace in Iraq, I never agreed with us virtually unilaterally going there to begin with. I question the real reasons behind it, and how much was bad intelligence and how much was lies. I would like to see the troops back (once the country is either stable enough that its own government can provide its people security or a multi-national peace-keeping mission--the preferred method in the first place--can help during the interim)

But...any country that gives in to terrorists' demands comes off as a real weenie, and makes it all the harder for everyone, as terrorists will be encouraged to use kidnappings, blackmail, and murder to further their aims. It particularly sends an image of weakness when you pull out and you only had 50 troops in country and were going to be leaving the next month anyway--and you just went through elections and then almost immediately lose face in international relations. Determination, grit, and strength are almost more important in world leaders than smarts. Look at GW Bush. Many of his own people (including me) think of him as an absolute idiot who is a slave to big-business interests, but no one would ever accuse him of being a weenie. A he'll probably be re-elected, no matter how much damage he does to the country and world relations, for that very reason. Jimmy Carter, an all-around good guy and a lot better president than I think he was ever given credit for, did come off as a weenie, and suffered politically because of it. It may be a bit mad, but it's the way the world works. Furthermore, Islamic cultures tend to value strength...and so you lose face to the Islamic militants, too.

I hate to see anyone killed--but you can never really trust that capitulating is really going to save that individual (after all, terrorists are not expected to be rational, law-abiding individuals).