In his Op-Ed today, I think Thomas Friedman articulates some of the issues surrounding the Iraq War pretty effectively. One of his points is that the biases around what happened in the past make discussing what should happen in the future an extremely complicated matter. Maybe this point is obvious, but I agree with Friedman in that the issue isn't being discussed as much as it should be. Friedman's words:

"Iraq has become one of those subjects that so many people now come to with so much emotional scar tissue that it is very hard to have a sober discussion about the actual situation there today. So much is colored by how you feel about George Bush or whether you were for or against the war. As a result, what we do next in Iraq — how and why — is barely getting discussed in the presidential campaign."

I know the candidates have a huge incentive to keep the message to the American public clear and easy to understand. As we all know, however, the situation in Iraq is far from clear and nowhere near easy to understand. This is the reality, but it does not need to result in the simplistic binary decision that these candidates seem to have given us.  "Leave at all costs" or "Stay until democracy functions" are not the only options out there - but unfortunately, our public discussion seems to have coalesced around these polarized views. While I'm cautiously optimistic we can have a more nuanced discussion about Iraq from our candidates in the coming months, I'm certainly not holding my breath. Regardless of how the public discussion evolves, my biggest fear is that winning an election will get in the way of making the right decision.