Here is this week's column as it appears in The Washington Times, the first of 125 papers that now regularly run my column.
While we're on the subject of questions for the presidential candidates, I realize this column introduces another question for them: What, even under the best of conditions the US military can achieve, can the US expect to "get" out of its immeasurable investment of blood and treasure in Iraq?
If the answer is "an ally," please explain how this can be so.
If the answer is "a bulwark against Iran," please explain how this can be so.
If the answer is "another Kuwait," please explain why we bothered. (If the explanation includes reference to the Bush administration's complete misunderstanding of the chances for Western concepts of freedom to succeed, or even be desired, in an Islamic culture, pass Go and proceed straight to the Oval Office.)