We're now on Day One of our fourth year of war in Iraq and its lesser step-sibbling, Afghanistan. Here are some numbers:
- 2,314 U.S. military dead
- 30,000-100,000 Iraqis dead
- $200-$250 billion spent

- the 133,000 American troops in Iraq is a third more than the numbers used to oust Saddam Hussein beginning in the early hours of March 20, 2003.

The numbers are so large, they've become difficult to comprehend.

Yet President Bush, on his return to the White House from a weekend at Camp David, summarized brightly, "We are implementing a strategy that will lead to victory in Iraq. And a victory in Iraq will make this country more secure and will help lay the foundation of peace for generations to come."

No mention of the civil war that officials inside Iraq are saying has already begun.

No mention of the highly publicized air assault on Duluiyah that killed eight civilians, including a child.

No mention of the almost daily execution-style shootings that are being discovered.

Was it worth it? Here are two views from the Scotsman, offering a British take on things over there. Alex Massie argues that yes, our rationale was sound. He says, "Though some under-estimated the scale of the difficulties the democratic project might face in Iraq, no one claimed that the cause of reform in the Middle East would be won in just a handful of years."

Underestimated the scale of difficulties???
We were entirely unprepared to handle the aftermath of deposing Saddam. And, in point of fact, we all recall the moment Rumsfeld claimed victory once the "shooting" was over.

Alex Salmond offers another view. "America is now exhausted by Iraq, with its 'war President' totally discredited, unable now to deal with the much more potent threat posed by an Iranian leadership who sense that weakness."

Ah, Iran. Our Middle Eastern nemesis. The ghost that won't go away. With the coffers empty, the American public exhausted to the point of nausea by war, what are we going to do?