Five years have passed since the Iraq War began, and as of yesterday 4,000 Americans have died in the war. Although there seem to be substantial differences between the two remaining Democratic candidates and the presumptive Republican nominee for the presidential election in 2008 on Iraq War policy, a number of commentators and analysts have noted that regardless of campaign rhetoric, there is not likely to be any substantive difference in actual policy in Iraq by the next President, whomever is elected. In short, the reason this would be the case is that the actual military, political stability, national and global security issues as they exist and evolve will drive policy more than any other factor at this point. Whether one agrees or disagrees in hindsight that the war should ever have been launched, and regardless of what appears to be overwhelming agreement that catastrophic errors in implementation were made at various points, that the surge has had some success militarily and that political factors remain extremely unstable, the facts on the ground at this point and future stages will determine policy. Even the Democratic candidates, although they have campaigned on relatively quick withdrawal, have hedged on when a complete and final withdrawal would occur and have in some sense kept their options open. And politically, at any point a successful draw down of US involvement can occur without unacceptably dire consequences, or because options to achieve stability have sufficiently succeeded, or failed, but have been exhausted, any president coming into office at this stage of the conflict would realistically act accordingly. Do you agree with many commentators and analysts that regardless of campaign rhetoric, the fundamental policy choices on the Iraq War made by the next president are likely to be more similar than divergent, because once in office, the next president will be constrained in policy choices based on factors as they exist at this stage and evolve in the future?