As someone who has been in harm's way and almost came home in such a manner, I think better reflection is necessary before insinuating that any sitting President is callous regarding military deaths.

WWII, Korea and Vietnam resulted in over 380,000 military deaths. The administrations in power at the time for 90% of those were Democratic. This is not an indictment of the Democratic Party - just a realism that things happen on an administration's watch and since we have given these folk this authority ("power" if you will..) to act on our behalf - hopefully because they have common sense, ethics, knowledge and experience, and reasonably decent judgment - we need to reflect why we gave them that authority "back then" as opposed to someone else. These folk have access to a LOT of information - much of which can't be made 'open' lest it be used against those we want to protect the most. So, the question is whether we still trust their judgement or not based on what information they had available to them then, and if not, why not?

While wars rage, there are always those who advocate to cut-and-run, as all wars last longer than the patience of the public. In many ways, that's good, because it shows we as a people are sensitive to the loss of life and view those who serve as valuable members of society who should not be 'consumed'. That doesn't change the fact that "things happen" during an administration that no one could foresee, and the decision to deploy the military into harm's way happens. That decision is never taken lightly, as it is never really popular for long. We Americans are an impatient people who expect immediate gratification (and success), and that expectation is often exploitable by those who would do us harm.

Thanks to the foresight of many, no one person can remain as President anymore longer than two terms of office. That also means a complete change shall occur in all appointed leadership posts within the Executive Branch as well when administrations change.

However anyone feels about the administration today, the real question is, based on the state of the world and country as it is today, what do we want to occur next and who do we trust to take over as "CEO" of the Executive Branch next to make it happen?

There is no way to accurately forecast whether the next administration is going to find itself facing the potential for another war after Iraq and Afghanistan dissipate. My gut fear is that another one will happen, and the pointing at coffins and anguish of death will occur again to include the tagging of the then-sitting administration as the perpetrators of the situation. It's just the way of things.