I made a decision a few years ago not to include specific names and faces of the troops with an explicit political message unless I knew for sure enough about their personal politics to know they would be okay with their names being used in that way. Among the troops, some support the war, some oppose it. I don't know if there is a way to rewrite this slightly and have people come to their own conclusions, and still feel the loss in a personal way. I would approach it from the perspective of what their parents or widows might feel reading your LTTE if they support the war or if they need to hang onto the belief that they died for something worthwhile. And what would you feel if you read the name of someone you lost in a LTTE, being used in a way that made the case that we need to stay in Afghanistan?
I don't know, this is an area I've struggled with a lot and sometimes I admittedly stray across that line. I don't know where the tipping point is between respecting the dead, even when we disagree with them - and the unavoidable truth that this is what war creates - and destroys.
Every time I hear people talking about Obama "playing chess" - I am quietly thinking yes, and that's a game you can't play without pawns. And that's the dilemma in a nutshell - how to best prevent people from being used as pawns.
(Anyway, I have kicked and recommended the thread.)
edit to add link to other thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8665186