There is such a thing as compromise

After all, history clearly shows that America wants its victories to have low body-count bills to pay: in the last sixty years, we've clearly lost the intestinal fortitude for protracted fights. Doves don't like to think about the fact that yes, this realization on the part of the enemy might well cause them to be willing to put on a push to wrap things up-just a few more suicide bombers (which means more coffins coming back to Dover) and that ought to do it. The troops really might pay the price. To real hawks, doves look defeatist, weak, and yes, treasonous.

Each extreme has its points, but the fact is that neither one works completely. Thus, here as almost always, we should take the best points from each extreme, accepting neither one wholesale. We can't simultaneously maximize both, so we have to settle for as much of both as we can get under the circumstances

Link

What can I say ?
Not much other then that I agree with what the author has said. Every partisan hack on both sides of the political spectrum should read this article.

There should be no compromise when the premise of a war was false to begin with. Either continue the crime or don't.