War in Iraq and Afghanistan still rages. The United States is now in its fourth year of fighting terrorists and insurgents. People are finding themselves gravitating to one of three categories:

1.Those that consider the fight not worthy of the blood of a single U.S. Marine.

2.Those that ask what degree of suffering people must undergo before the United Nations or the United States will intervene, and

3.Those that simply concentrate on the political advantage that such a situation provides.

No matter what side of the argument you’re on, the first or second categories are understandable as a matter of conscience. However, the third category is indefensible. To make personal gain at the expense of others puts one in the same category as disgraced Durham County District Attorney Michael Nifong of the Duke lacrosse team infamy. Nifong’s behavior was a shameless display of the willingness of an elected official to sacrifice others to further one’s own career.

Speaking of which, Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is clawing desperately to secure his place in history as an obscure footnote to better men than himself. He has once again provided to ‘al-Qaida in Iraq’ what that terrorist group couldn’t obtain for itself. Reid, in his capacity as senate majority leader, declared to the American public that the war in Iraq was ‘lost.’ One can mentally picture a wry smile breaking out across the face of Osama bin Laden at the very moment Reid mouthed those words. O.b.L. has proved the most prescient in this war when he surmised that the American political body would tire of the fight long before the American forces. Who knew that such a weak-kneed hack as Harry Reid would be so indispensable to world events?

Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) let it be known that the war in Iraq is ‘a lead weight attached to their [Republicans’] ankle.’ Schumer went on to predict that congressional Democrats will pick up additional seats because of the war. No one wants to claim that Schumer is playing politics by climbing up the backs of dead U.S. soldiers, but it’s difficult to see his actions in any other light. Especially when he defends Harry Reid’s ‘the war is lost’ statement by claiming that, despite the war being lost, it could be won. Hat’s off to Schumer who put on a show of verbal contortions not seen since the introduction of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ as the official policy for gays in the military by the Clinton administration. The jury’s still out, but it seems rather clear that for Schumer the outcome of the war is immaterial. What’s important is that whatever the outcome, the Democratic Party must be seen as acting in the best interest of the country. If that requires losing the war in Iraq, then so be it. Chuck is circling category three, but is trying desperately to frame it as the only logical conclusion. Good luck with that.

Nancy Pelosi is the face of the Democratic Party. In that role, she believes she can control the extent of failure in the war in Iraq. Her hope appears to be that she can successfully allow for the defeat of American forces in the Middle East so as to embarrass the Bush administration, thus ensuring a Democratic victory in 2008 while simultaneously preventing the complete overrun of Iraq by the terrorists bent on the destruction of both the United States and Israel. Given that Nancy Pelosi could not manage to speak to Syrian President Assad for 15 minutes without misquoting Israeli President Olmert and causing an international incident doesn’t bode well as to her fortunes in controlling the outcome of a war that has dire consequences for anyone wishing not to live the remainder of there lives under Sharia law.

The executive office in this country is up for grabs every four years. That duration would seem short enough that neither party would want to cause irreparable harm to the United States or the Middle East in the hopes of accelerating that turnover. But perhaps we’re aiming a little too high ‘

‘ Megan Donahue is nursing major. She hopes for as much success to the Democratic Party as the Democratic Party hopes for Iraq.