Truthfully, the election's impact on the outcome of the war in Iraq will be negligible when it's all said and done. The outcome of the war has already been decided; it's the time frame in which it's accomplished that is left to be seen.

Conversely, that is the only aspect of the Iraqi war issue that can currently divide the candidates.

Now that America has gone to war, there are certain things that must be accomplished before we officially call it "quits". Though campaign promises are plentiful, calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops or demanding timetables to leave a country so obviously ill equipped to self govern would be irresponsible - even for those candidates who have vocally opposed the war.

That the American people have grown so disillusioned with war propaganda, it would seem the easiest way to attract voters would be promises to end the conflict as quickly as possible. But Americans have already been mislead - on the total cost and timetable of the war - by the current administration.

Current candidates like Obama and Clinton have distanced themselves from the original decision Thto go to war, but no matter what "should" have been done prior to launching this attack on Iraq, the attack was launched. Just as you cannot un-ring a bell, no one can rewind back to the choices they made prior to authorizing military action in a pre-emptive attack that will historically be classified as "ill advised".

All that can be done now is realistically assessing how to clean up the mess made.

Each candidate offers a slightly different viewpoint on how this can be accomplished. McCain, who supports the war, and has gone on record saying that keeping our military in Iraq for one hundred years would be all right with him, using Korea and Japan as examples, stating the necessity to continue to be a presence in such a volatile part of the world.

For those who have vocally opposed the war, a quicker resolution is offered. Barack Obama wants to have all the troops home within 16 months, and not build any permanent bases in Iraq. It sounds good on paper, but could he actually make good on this promise?

Hillary Clinton has also stated that she would start bringing troops home within the first 60 days of her administration. Shrewdly, she's a bit more vague on exactly how long it will take to disengage. But she does say she believes focus should be spent on making the government more independent, making sure American aid went to entities that directly impacted the Iraqi people.

Unfortunately, given the war has already raged since 2003, it would seem naive to assume that one president, one administration or even one term could bring about these proposed resolutions. Especially when the Democratic controlled Congress has been unable to bring about much promised change in this area.

The better question seems to be, how will the war in Iraq impact the next American presidential administration?

Learn more about this author, Ginger Voight.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about US elections 2008: Assessing the impact of the election on the outcome of the war in Iraq?
We want to hear your view. Write now!