For tonight's debate: the war is not a Yes or No question

When the main candidates for the republican nomination get up on stage in Florida tonight for the CNN/YouTube debate, there will only be one person standing who supports a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. And that man, though he earns the approval of a group including everyone from pastors to pimps, will-- let's be honest-- not win the nomination. The rest, for reasons more or less legitimate, are arguing to keep troops active there to some degree for some time. That's all well and good, but let's remember what made this war a debacle in the first place: no consideration for consequences.

I am open to the idea that leaving troops in Iraq could be the best thing to do at this point. But if anyone in the current crop of presidential candidates, republican or otherwise, wants to earn even a degree of my respect, they had better articulate what they expect the consequences of their actions in Iraq to be. As I watch the republican debate tonight, I hope to hear ideas about what our longterm role in the Middle East should be. I hope to hear what sacrifices we as a nation would have to make to fulfill that role. Perhaps most importantly, I would like to hear how we expect to repay those making the biggest sacrifices.

It's no secret that the government's treatment of veterans is pathetic. The deplorable conditions of Walter Reed hospital made it clear to the general public that veterans are not getting the medical attention they need and deserve. Read The Nation's investigative report from earlier this year about the questionable practices of the VA that are preventing veterans from collecting medical benefits-- the personal stories told are heartbreaking. The Nation also ran a story just yesterday commenting on the paltry educational benefits veterans receive, which are in stark contrast to the benefits they are promised. And what a surprise that, with no medical benefits or the resources to obtain an education, veterans make up more than their fair share of the country's homeless population.

When the White House declared its opposition to the new GI bill that Senator Jim Webb introduced in January, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, the president only demonstrated that he continues to be short-sighted. As pointed out in The Nation's article, a stronger GI Bill could potentially invigorate the economy as the Congressional Research Office showed the original did.

The next president cannot afford to have such narrow vision. The next Commander in Chief may or may not decide we should keep troops in Iraq-- but he or she better think about the decisions to make after that.