[nostatic]

I wanted to try and get away from the vitriol in the other thread, and the insistence on painting lunatic fringe and honest americans against the war with the same brush.

Let's assume that the following neocon premise is correct:

Protesting in the US leads to increased deaths of US troops abroad. It does this by any number of mechanisms, including strengthening of the insurgent's resolve (resulting in longer operation period for US troops) and/or demoralizing US troops leading to poorer performance.

So if that is the case, then what is a US citizen supposed to do if they oppose the war? Some might believe that if they don't protest, the war effort will continue unabated, leading to increased casualties. If they do protest it will similarly lead to increased casualties. So what is the "proper" course of action?

I ask this in all seriousness, because it seems to me that the neocon position would prescribe inaction by the masses. What I keep hearing is that one must back the administration in order to back the troops, etc. What is allowable dissent?