The Small but Vocal Anti-War Left

Today's Star Tribune has a Counterpoint written by Wes Davey here that attacks the mission of Vets for Freedom. It consists of the same tired whine of "we aren't winning, we should quit, no one knows what victory means, and the war costs too much." I've fired off a letter to the editor that I will post after tomorrows paper comes out. In all fairness I want them to have a chance to publish it first. The anti-war crowd is really besides themselves of late. Here in Minneapolis, a metro area of over 3 million, they recently couldn't muster a crowd of anti-Americans any larger then 600 to 800 for a protest that was planned for two months.

What really bugs these defeatists is that they managed to elect in 2006 Democrats who promised to stop the war in Iraq and now have turned their back on the anti-war movement. After Democrat leaders announced that the war was lost a year ago the Surge came along and now most American's believe we will ultimately win the Iraq War. It must give the anti-war crowd a considerable feeling of betrayal for the way they were used and abused. Perhaps Preparation H would soothe that burning feeling.

Lets face it folks, the Surge has worked, the Iraqi's are standing up militarily, politically, and economically to the chagrin for those cowardly sorts that demand we cut and run -starting today. Today we have even more confirmation of the winning direction with the announcement of General David Petraeus being named the new Commander of CENTCOM (Central Command). We currently have the right tactics and the right leadership executing this war. We in the Vets for Freedom only ask, "Let them Win!"

UPDATE # 1, The Star Tribune published part of my Letter to the Editor. I understand that the Tribune has the right to edit and reduce the size of letters for spacing purposes. Tim O'Brien  has always been fair and I repect him for that. Here is the letter published here.

All wars are detestable and have long lasting negative consequences. We combat veterans know that far too well. In war there are no unwounded soldiers. As part of the 250 plus members of the Minnesota Vets for Freedom all we ask is: "Let them Win!"

UPDATE # 2, I would like to add that Vets for Freedom is a 21,000 member, non-partisan group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans that has the support of Congressional Democrats, Independents and Republicans. We believe that when our nation is at war we must fund, equip and allow our troops the necessary time to do their job. For most of us who have fought in Iraq or Afghanistan, the thought of turning tail on our allies and running away is repulsive. 

Comments

[lloydletta]

Welcome to the blogosphere Joe. I look forward to reading your blog.

[FScottFitzgerald]

"We in the Vets for Freedom only ask, "Let them Win!"

When will we know that we've won?

That question was answered in my Star Tribune letter to the editor (see link), "Victory will be achieved when the Iraqi people and their duly elected government can protect themselves from internal and external enemies. As long as Syria, Iran and Al-Qaida continue to subvert and attack the Iraqi people, and the United States and our coalition partners are asked to stay by the Iraqi government, our job continues." JR

[FScottFitzgerald]

"That question was answered in my Star Tribune letter to the editor (see link), "Victory will be achieved when the Iraqi people and their duly elected government can protect themselves from internal and external enemies. As long as Syria, Iran and Al-Qaida continue to subvert and attack the Iraqi people, and the United States and our coalition partners are asked to stay by the Iraqi government, our job continues." JR"

The costs of the war in loss of life (4,000 American, countless Iraqis and others) and dollars (eventually $3 trillion), and by other measures (e.g., impact on our nation’s military readiness) are well-known.

What's the benefit to the U.S. that justifies those staggering costs?

FScott: The same benefit we achieved after World War II, the chance to change a dangerous part of the world into a more peaceful and productive area. That war cost 65 million lives and hundreds of trillions of today's dollars.

Have we made mistakes? Yes we have. No war goes as planned and we were very slow in changing our tactics. But the Surge is working, the Iraq government is getting stronger and we are closer to victory then defeat.

However, it would be a bigger mistake in lives, costs and safety to America to quit and run now. Unfortunately, the anti-war crowd doesn't see it that way and still believe that the Democrats will legislate their way.

Mark my words, Clinton or Obama will stab you in the back if they get elected just like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did. When or if they get in charge, the reality and responsibility for their actions while on their watch will overrule their promises to you anti-war folks. The Democrats don't want a repeat of the aftermath of Vietnam and the blame that will go with another foreign policy defeat of this magnitude. Thanks for your comment.

Let our soldiers WIN! JR

[TwoPuttTommy]

***"Lets face it folks, the Surge has worked, the Iraqi's are standing up militarily, politically, and economically..."***

Yeah, "right".

Colonel - how much time did you spend in uncoventional warfare? I'm thinking not a lot, if you think the "surge" has worked.

Because, the troop increase was a sham; it's the change in tactics from conventional to uncoventional that's made a difference.

And it's only "made a difference"; because it sure hasn't worked.

Here's a question for you to ponder: since it took years and Years and YEARS for Protestants and Cahotlics to settle "The Troubles", what makes you think Shia, Sunni, and Kurds will play nice in the sandbox, so quickly?

[FScottFitzgerald]

"FScott: The same benefit we achieved after World War II, the chance to change a dangerous part of the world into a more peaceful and productive area. That war cost 65 million lives and hundreds of trillions of today's dollars."

You aren't seriously making a comparison between the war in Iraq and its aftermath with World War II and its aftermath, are you?

The Iraq war initiated and largely fought by one country -- us -- with little or no support from most of the rest of the world aside from the U.K. It removed a brutal dictator but destabilized the country but created an unsrgency and and resulted in the presence of Al Qaeda.

It's cost $500 billion so far (and will likely end up costing more than $1 trillion) made a shambles of our economy, killed 4,000 of our troops, injured thousands more troops, and caused 1 in 5 returning troops to suffer from PTSD.

The war was started by lies and distortions. First, it was to removed WMDs. Now, those in favor of the war have retreated to things you'd expect to hear from a bleeding heart liberal, like, "the chance to change a dangerous part of the world into a more peaceful and productive area."

That's not an honest answer. And it's one most Americans aren't buying.