Probably because if there is more suffering people will want it to end faster.
There is this bizarre idea that the suffering should be "spread around" which makes absolutely zero sense.
Those who are suffering in this war are the soldiers and their loved ones.
OK, we agree on that?
Now, let's say we have rationing, the draft, high inflation, misery, etc. back home.
That in now way "spreads around" the misery the soldiers and their families are experiencing.
The article starts off with a bizarre rant about people "stuffing their faces" while a war is on. I have nothing but respect for the soldier who feels this way, but I have to ask, what does he expect, that we not eat while the war is on? That we live on bread and water, that kids never go out? Why? What will that do to lessen the impact on our fighting men and women?
If someone can explain how making more people miserable while doing NOTHING to comfort those in most, true pain during war helps anyone, anywhere, I'm willing to listen.
I work in a hospital, and although I haven't worked in direct patient care for a few years, those years that I did, I was able, due to the nature of my work, to have fairly extensive conversations with my patients, since I often spent the better part of an hour or two in close contact with them. Being a military brat of a man now buried in Arlington, a Navy vet myself, and a hobbyist historian with an interest in the military in particular, I had the opportunity to talk with a lot of veterans. They are easy to spot. If they aren't wearing a unit hat, it will just come out quickly in the conversation, and barring that, you can just tell if you know what to look for. I found I could usually figure out the person was a vet pretty quickly.
I took every opportunity to speak with them and thank them. Spoke with veterans of WWII, Korea and Vietnam. One of the things I have always been fascinated by is the relationship military men have with the home front.
My favorite movie is "The Best Years of Our Lives", which came out in 1946 and won an Oscar for best picture. If you have never seen it, I cannot emphasize enough that you should. A beautifully done movie, the issues it portrays are just as relevant today as they were back then. An emotional, uplifting movie.
In my conversations with war vets (many had seen combat) most of them don't want their friends and relatives to suffer the privations of war. They wanted them to live their lives to the fullest. They DIDN'T want them to see the sights of war, or smell the smells. Sure, they had times when they thought "I wonder how those bastards would like it if they had to be here in this foxhole/compartment/barracks/tent eating this crap and experiencing this BS." They didn't like the fact that they were deprived of certain comforts or materials and found out the people back home were getting them. Nobody likes it when they can't have a hot shower or eat good chow, and see people back home not only doing both with impunity, but not appreciating it either, but they didn't want them to suffer.
They wanted them to genuinely appreciate what was being done and support them in their efforts.
They wanted HOME to come HOME to. I remembered talking to one guy who was in Germany as the war ended, and was in one of the bombed out cities, and he said it depressed the hell out of him. There was such utter destruction, and he knew back home people had been acting like the war had been over for several months...going to nightclubs and so on. He was glad they never had to experience what he was seeing...he didn't seem to begrudge them their selfish ignorance. He did say, though..."I thought people back home should have been able to see that city to know how lucky they were..." but there was no rancor in the statement. Maybe there was back in 1945, I don't know.
Well, you answered your own question. The people who say this think it will make the population weary of the whole thing, thus clamor for troop withdrawal, and that will be that. (Of course Iraq will descend into all out civil war and failed-state status, but at least the war will be "over"! ;-)
The people this "helps" are isolationists who don't want our troops to be anywhere for ideological reasons, and leftists whose obsession for 3 years has been to gain political advantage from the Iraq occupation.
It doesn't help the troops (good point about nothing being "spread around"), and it doesn't help us succeed in Iraq. But that's not what these people are interested in anyway.