A rational terrorist model suggests that insurgent actors should increase attacks on an occupying country when that country is closer to the margin of withdrawal.
and goes on further to explain
The emboldenment perspective might be separated into two distinct sets of arguments about why the perception of low resolve in one period increases insurgent violence in a subsequent period. A “cost sensitivity” argument posits that signals undercutting the perception of U.S. resolve in Iraq are likely to produce greater levels of violence if insurgents perceive that increasing the costs of the U.S. presence will induce withdrawal - that is, if the United States appears to be responsive to the costs imposed by the insurgents in the form of higher attacks.
So in other words, the U.S. Media, Anti-War groups, and wary legislators are fueling the insurgent fire. People within America are with or without purpose costing the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians when they vehemently protest and chastise war efforts. That is not to say criticism of the war is not needed, or that we should not publicly question the government to keep its nose clean so to speak. What this indicates is that Americans need to be far more responsible in their Freedom of Speech and really think about the consequences of their actions.
No longer can anti-war protesters claim innocence in the deaths of Iraqi and American alike, because to me this study shows that blood is also on their hands. This is a message to groups like Code Pink, that perhaps their methods are not working for the purpose of their actions if it is indeed to promote peace and protect U.S. Military members and the Iraqi people. This is also a message to the media, right and left, that war coverage should be responsible, factual, and not inciting without just cause.
.
