I CAN'T COME to one conclusion without adding an opposite stipulation beginning with but, however, and perhaps.

For someone who likes to have a formula or theory that neatly explains or fits every occurrence, this war is frustrating for me. I know it is for others—even those of us not running for office. And for some of you who read and comment on this blog.

In a posting on April 13, 2007, I wrote in support of U.S. withdrawal:

Will a withdrawal hurt our image—make us losers—when it comes to sectarian wars or nation-building? Absolutely. However, in the long run, our reputation as a country that continues to throw good money after bad and good soldiers to their deaths, while not allowing the Iraqis—or whoever they are—to find their own government is far worse.

Yeah, but I wasn't totally comfortable with that posting. Two good friends quickly confirmed my angst. These are two guys who know the issues and whose opinions and findings I highly respect. Good friend, Julio Garcia, weighed in first:

Win First, Then Get Out (by the way, winning means to eliminate all terrorist elements that can raise again to attempt to hurt or destroy us just as was done with the Japanese Kamikaze followers, we do not have to kill them all, just the bad ones.

Another good friend, Mike Green, chimed in:

I also think that most Americans have lost all historical perspective on the cost of war. If the war can't be won in less than three years and with little to no servicemen killed then we have to bail out like a bunch of Frenchmen…This war has been going on for what, four years with 3500+/- killed? Not to denigrate the loss of any U.S. servicemen, but compared to other conflicts of the past, this isn't a "piss hole in the snow" by comparison, as my dad used to say. We lost TWICE this number in less than 30 days at Iwo Jima in '45.

Yeah, but neither comments made me feel any better. Isn't the surge—the opposite of withdrawal—just creating a killing field of Arabs and Americans? There's plenty of evidence that says the more we kill, the more they recruit. Michael Scheuer, in his book Imperial Hubris, writes that George Bush is a poster child for terrorist recruiters.

Don't we need to look at the root cause? Islamic fundamentalism is a swamp of unending, angry, uneducated Muslim men. It's a virus that can adapt to whatever inoculation we inject.

Yeah, but the surge isn't just a military effort. It's economic help. It's also an educational effort to understand the locals better to help serve their needs and to keep them on our side. And, in some parts, this plan is working.

Yeah, but the surge is too late. It was needed in April, 2003. It's also too little. Another 140,000 troops—my numbers—are needed to stop insurgency and sectarian violence. That number could provide the security so a government and the economy might appear, not even flourish, to create some jobs.

Yeah, but even those numbers offer no guarantee. First, the Iraqis might not be able to govern themselves peacefully for decades. Second, where would we get the extra 140,000 troops? We would need a draft in the U.S. or the world's biggest dose of sympathy from Europe. And don't forget our uncanny ability to do nothing and have extremist Muslims hate us.

Let me go back to the postings of Julio and Mike. No one appreciates historical perspective better than me. Yeah, but a comparison of Japanese kamikaze pilots to Islamic suicide bombers only makes sense—on the surface. I contend the Japanese were honorable, flying themselves only into military targets, while Muslim bombers target American military and civilians—even their own.

There's an even bigger "Yeah, but" to remember when comparing Muslims with kamikazes. Remember how we stopped the kamikazes and the country that gave them comfort. We dropped two atomic bombs. Is that our ultimate solution? Do we use that 1945 solution for a 2007 problem? It's a far different world when only one country possesses such weapons.

Let's look at the "yeah, buts" from the pull-out side. Withdrawing American troops will presumably save American lives. Yeah, but there's strong evidence that a regional war will break out. Iran will back the Shia. Saudi Arabia will back the Sunnis. The Kurds will want autonomy, forcing military action from Turkey, a country now in domestic turmoil over a secular or Islamic government. It could be a brutal summer.

Maybe such a war would finally solve the problems of the Middle East? Yeah, but a regional war would destroy the U.S. and world economy. The price of gas is now heading toward four dollars a gallon. If a war broke out, expect ten dollars a gallon. Sure, we could press Mexico and Canada into refining more. We could make friends with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. We could start drilling in ANWAR. But all that would barely make up for the lost output from the Middle East.

So, we don't pull-out. We stay and fight. Yeah, but tell the parents of those men and women dying in Iraq that their lives paid for our cars and the lights and refrigerators to work in our safe houses.

Yeah, but it's all because of George Bush. Yeah, but there's nothing we can do about the past.

It's time to face the future. Yeah, but it won't be easy.

Finally. Absolutely.