There is certainly no shortage of opinions when it comes to the war in Iraq. It seems as though everybody has their own ideas about how things should or could have been done if you were to ask them. But besides the few minutes on the news dedicated to the war, or some politician talking about it on television, how much time does the average American spend during their day thinking about the people dying a world away?

My guess would be not much, unless they happen to have a family member or friend who is overseas. The majority of Americans seem to be tired of hearing about the war. It is depressing and we are so far removed from the battlefields, that it is easier to just not think about it, or at least easy to forget.

Whether or not you agree that the war is justified, the loss of life on all sides – the U.S. and international armed forces, independent contractors rebuilding the infrastructure, Iraqi security forces and civilians, and even the insurgents – is unacceptable.

According to the Department of Defense statistics, 3,623 Coalition forces have been killed since the start of the war in March 2003. 3,351 of those casualties were U.S. troops. Coalition forces have sustained heavy injuries as well, with more than 50,000 U.S. soldiers wounded.

By far, the greatest loss of life has been sustained by the Iraqi people. According to a joint study by a team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists, about 655,000 Iraqi military personnel and civilians have died as a result of the war and the insurgency that has followed. This is a much larger figure than the 50,000 that President Bush had cited in December of last year.

It is a war and people die, that is the nature of the beast. But we must ask ourselves if destroying hundreds of thousands of lives is ultimately worth what we hope to achieve there.

The Iraqis do appear, for the most part, to be embracing their new form of government – as was evident by voter turnout in their first national elections. However, if it had been the Iraqi people that had risen up and ousted Saddam, I believe that there would be a higher level of cohesive unity throughout the country.

But the U.S. was the driving force behind the changes in Iraq and now we have to deal with the situation that we helped create.

Removing Saddam from power had some unpredicted effects on the region. As a brutal dictator he kept the smaller factions at bay. With the fear of Saddam gone, many rebel groups and insurgents have come from around the region to try and get a piece of the new Iraq, or at least hinder the U.S. operations.

Now that we are no longer searching for those alleged WMD’s, or going after genuine threats to our own country – such as Bin Laden – it is hard to justify our actions as serving national security interests. The predominant justification for remaining in Iraq is now that we should “stay the course” and finish what we started.

Although this is an after-the-fact validation for the occupation, it does prove a poignant point. If we were to withdraw all our forces now, Iraq would most likely fall into an all-encompassing civil war seeing casualties that would put the current numbers to shame.

In order to succeed in Iraq, we need more than just military campaigns. Diplomatic action needs to be stepped up dramatically. Diplomacy should not just be focused in Iraq either. Improving our relations with the neighboring countries will greatly benefit the situation in Iraq.

Unfortunately, diplomacy may have to wait until we get a new president who is capable of putting personal interests aside for the greater good.