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.)