Dear President Bush and Sen. John Kerry:

You will be debating foreign policy issues tonight on television. This is the best opportunity for both of you to lay out your positions on the No. 1 issue in the campaign: Iraq.

We are not interested in your descriptions of the other candidate’s position. So, please, skip the “flip-flop” and “fantasy world” sound bites. We are interested in your solutions and how you would implement them if you are victorious in November.

Sen. Kerry, we understand that challengers have to be careful when advocating foreign policy in September that cannot be implemented until January. You do not have the benefit of counsel from national security advisers, the military and intelligence agencies, and their input could surely change your plans. However, you could be more specific about the steps you have outlined thus far.

You say you would encourage the international community to play a larger role in the security of Iraq. But why would other countries send in troops to alleviate the killing of ours? How would you go about that? What would be in it for them?

You say Iraqis must be trained to take control of security. How is that different from what the president is saying? You say credible elections cannot be held until the security issue is resolved. Does that mean you’d call up more U.S. troops to quell the violence in the meantime?

And, finally, how would you describe “success”? Would it be the establishment of a democracy?

President Bush, you have an optimistic outlook for Iraq, but expert assessments from inside and outside of government have been uniformly gloomy. You say we are succeeding, but the current course hasn’t reduced violence and hasn’t allowed for the sustained reconstruction of the country.

What mistakes have been made in trying to “win the peace”? Is the current course the best way to win the hearts and mind of Iraqis? Under what circumstances would you postpone the January elections? How is this war helping the overall war on terrorism?

As secretary of defense in 1992, Dick Cheney said the following in defending the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the Persian Gulf War: “Everybody is fond of looking back at Desert Storm and saying that it was, in fact, a low-cost conflict because we didn’t suffer very many casualties. But for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it was not a cheap or a low-cost conflict. The question, to my mind, in terms of this notion that we should have gone on and occupied Iraq is how many additional American casualties would we have had to suffer?”

He also said: “I would guess if we had gone on to Baghdad, I would still have forces in Iraq today. I don’t know how we would have let go of that tar baby once we had grabbed hold of it.”

A final question for both candidates: About 1,040 U.S. soldiers have died and more than 7,000 have been injured. The insurgency shows no signs of letting up. How do we let go of that tar baby today?