Debating the war in Iraq leads us to three fundamental questions that need to be addressed.  They are as follows:

1)  What is victory?

2) Is victory worth the cost?

3) What are the repurcussions for failure?

Let's get into each of these.  I would greatly enjoy anybody's input on the matter.  Tell me why I'm wrong.

1)  Victory is defined (in my estimation) as establishing a stable, liberal democracy in Iraq that is capable of acting autonimously and as an ally to the war on terror.  Why is defining this so difficult? 

2)  With the drastic amount spent in terms of dollars and blood, it is entirely understandable why people are so impatient with our situation.  It is also understandable for people to be frustrated over the decision to invade to begin with.  Nevertheless, a historical perspective must be made here.  In WWII, (according to Robert Samuelson of Newsweek) the US spent a massive 38% of the gross domestic product. Well over 400,000 American troops killed in action, with millions of Germans and Japanese also killed (many of whom were civilians) at the blunt end of the American war machine.  Nobody ever debates whether or not it was worth the cost.  Compared with today, we are spending 1% of the GDP.  Over 4000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead (mostly by other Iraqis/Iranians).  We citizens of today's generation have no idea what sacrifice really is.  If our children go without their video games for a whole day, some special interest group may sue for cruel and unusual punishment.  I say this as I have personally lost buddies of mine in my battalion during my deployment in OIF III.

3)  Senator Clinton once asked General Pretraus to define failure in Iraq (since it seems nobody wants to define victory).  I don't remember his response, but in my opinion I can simply define failure as thus:  when we give up.  In the Revolutionary War, it is a mistake to assume that we kicked some British butt.  We didn't.  We lost an overwhelming majority of the major battles fought.  Washington himself fought in 9, and only won 3.  But we didn't give up, while the British finally did.  Hence our nation was born.  If we simply give up now because of lack of patience, and fail to achieve the aformentioned victory conditions, the consequences will be severe.  We can expect hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people slaughtered in all out chaos.  We can expect Iran to dominate the remants of any existing government in Baghdad, and further ambitions against both Isreal and the United States.  We can expect oil prices to go much much higher, greatly hindering the world economy.  We can expect al'Queda to gain safe haven in Iraq and flourish (last I checked, al'Queda is still in Iraq, but currently on the run).  We can expect a much worse situation that will require another deployment of troops later on down the road, ultimately getting us nowhere.

We are coming to a major crossroads at this point.  New successes are coming about in this struggle, but the situation is far from ideal - only 19 troops were killed in the month of May.  The difference between the major political presidential candidates is clear, while both feel that they are acting in our nation's best interests.  I pray that whoever wins the upcoming election will be the one with the right plan.  I make no bones about my current support for McCain as I feel he has the right idea; but if Obama wins and it turns out he was right on how to deal with this situation, then I'll be happy with that no matter what else will be the outcome of his administration.