President Lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed the enemy had to be defeated. He was right.

Peace through strength works; but the flip side is war invited by weakness.

I believe, if done correctly, eliminating Saddam and liberating Iraq could be the ‘Normandy Invasion’ or ‘fall of the Berlin Wall’ of our generation...the Iraqi people are eager to be rid of Saddam, and there is equally encouraging evidence that republican principles could thrive there.

Congress will be tempted to wipe their hands of this, go to the Election Day and say 'we've done our part' and that's where groups like ours, Concerned Veterans for America, veterans across the country have to keep the heat on them to say this is just the start. VA is not fixed.

At Concerned Veterans for America, we've made the case that the defense budget could be targeted for spending reform, but in a targeted fashion that genuinely changes unsustainable spending trajectories while preserving U.S. defense capacity.

Two things are to blame for our predicament, one a corollary of the other. The first reason is that we did not have enough troops in Samarra. The skill and courage of 150 American soldiers prevented chaos, but was never enough to fully secure a city of 120,000 people or maintain the rule of law [...] Second, because of a lack of troops, American military leaders are forced to make a choice between mission objectives and self-preservation.

Whether we like it or not, gender differences matter in a combat situation.