Give Them What They Need or Bring Them The Hell Home

Vets For Freedom Petition

We, the undersigned U.S. war veterans and patriotic Americans, petition you with one simple request:

Listen to the commander on the ground in Afghanistan—General Stanley A. McChrystal—and provide him with the troops he says he needs to win the war in Afghanistan.

By accepting the troop recommendations of General McChrystal—and his boss General David Petraeus—we have a chance to turn the war in Afghanistan around. This is a moment in history we must not miss.

Like General Petraeus in Iraq, General McChrystal is an outside-the-box thinker who thrives in the ambiguity of asymmetrical battlefields. Like General Petraeus in Iraq, General McChrystal has the right strategy—a comprehensive counterinsurgency plan.

In 2007, General Petraeus was given the troops he needed (the "Surge") to win, and Iraq has turned around—resulting in dramatically lower U.S. casualties, a more stable Iraq, and a drawdown of American forces.

General McChrystal—and all our brave Soldiers and Marines on the ground—deserve the same chance to win in Afghanistan. They deserve the additional troops needed to turn a winning strategy into a winning result.

We fully acknowledge that the war in Afghanistan has been tough, and is currently headed in the wrong direction. And as you have said, it has been under-resourced, under-funded, and under-manned for years. You have also said that it is a war we must win. We agree on all fronts.

Unlike Iraq, there was consensus at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan that America must be successful in toppling the Taliban and dismantling Al Qaeda, for the safety of our country. Eight years later, the consensus on the war in Afghanistan is fractured; however we believe—as do you—that the need for victory has not changed.

During this time of domestic uncertainty and global threats, winning the war will require steadfast Presidential leadership; a Commander-in-Chief who is unwilling to be swayed by lagging poll numbers or party leaders who want to block troop increases.

Now is the time for your leadership. If you listen to commanders on the ground, give them what they need, and stand behind our warriors in Afghanistan—we will stand with you. If you don't, and would rather fight the "war of necessity" with one hand tied behind our back, then we will loudly object.

Many—in fact a majority—said the war in Iraq was "unwinnable," yet our troops persevered and turned the tide. Despite the drumbeat of detractors—on both sides of the aisle—this is another war we can win. But we must act now.

We owe it to the Marines and Soldiers slogging it out with insurgents every day to get this right. If we do, they'll fight, they'll persevere, and they'll win. If we don't, we are setting them up for failure. No less than America's greatness—and the legacy of America's finest warriors—is at stake.

We Have Won

The Great Betrayal

By David Horowitz and Ben JohnsonFrontPageMagazine.comThursday, March 19, 2009

On this sixth anniversary of America's invasion of Iraq, there is finally a consensus among supporters and opponents that we've won the war. The surge that Bush launched and Democrats opposed has been successful and, as a result, Iraq has become a Middle Eastern democracy, an anti-terrorist regime, and an American ally. It would be hard to imagine a more remarkable turnabout or a more comprehensive repudiation of conventional political wisdom. Yet this has not led to a comparable reappraisal by critics of the war of their previous attacks, or to any mea culpas by Democrats who launched a scorched earth campaign against the president who led it, and continued it for five years while the war dragged on.
The Democratic attacks on the war described America's commander-in-chief as a liar who misled his country and sent American soldiers to die in a conflict that was unnecessary, illegal and unjust. This made prosecution of the war incalculably harder while strengthening the resolve of our enemies to defeat us. It is time to re-evaluate the words and actions of the war's opponents in the stark light of a history that proved them wrong.
In the fall of 2002, a majority of Democrats in the Senate joined Republicans in voting to authorize President Bush to use force to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein. In July 2003, only three months after Saddam had been removed, the Democratic National Committee launched a national campaign which accused President Bush of lying in order to trick Democrats into voting for the war. It was the beginning of a five-year campaign designed to paint the president as the liar-in-chief and America as a criminal aggressor, and the military occupier of a poor country that had not attacked us.
What had changed in the intervening three months to turn Democrats so vehemently against the war they had authorized? The answer can only be found in domestic politics. In those three months, an unknown antiwar candidate named Howard Dean had taken the lead in the primary polls and was looking like a shoe-in for the Democratic presidential nomination. As a result rival candidates who had voted for the war, including eventual nominees Kerry and Edwards, changed their positions 180 degrees and joined the attacks on President Bush. Naturally, the Democrats couldn't admit their attacks were motivated by crass political calculations. Instead, they claimed that they had been deceived by the White House which had manipulated the intelligence on Iraq, persuading them to support the war on false premises.
This allegation was in fact the biggest lie of the war, since Democrats had full access to all U.S. intelligence on Iraq through their seats on the congressional intelligence committees. This intelligence was available to them, in advance of their vote to authorize the use of force. In the months and years that followed, the Democrats added other false charges -- that troops "killed innocent civilians in cold blood," were "terrorizing kids and...women," and had committed atrocities comparable to "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime."

They rejoiced when news reporters leaked information about national security programs designed to combat the terrorists -- and thus destroyed them. They held up funding for American soldiers on the battlefield, attempted to cut off all funding, and when that failed, tried to tie funding to a timeline that would ensure America's defeat. They openly accused uniformed officers like General David Petraeus of lying about conditions on the ground and hoped against hope that ''this war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything.''

Dissent is legitimate in wartime, but the Democratic Party's opposition to this war went far beyond dissent into unprecedented territory. Fortunately, the Bush administration was able to retrieve its own mistakes and its domestic opponents to win a war that Democrats said was unwinnable and (despite their own authorization) shouldn't have been fought in the first place. But it was no thanks to the Party that now occupies the White House that this American war was won.

URL: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4AABD85B-82A4-4236-9AF9-2D8D5D482D15