As the primary season kicks into truly high gear, the extent to which the subject of current operations in Iraq has been avoided is truly remarkable. Candidates are content to talk in broad strokes, focusing more on past actions than on future plans. The striking divergence between political rhetoric and ground truth led Michael Gordon, of Cobra II fame, to remark:

For the past year, I have led a double existence, dividing my time between military reporting assignments in Iraq and tracking the campaign debate in the United States...Those were parallel universes, in which the discussion of the taxing road ahead and potential fall-back options were often so divergent that the generals and the politicians seemed not to be talking about the same war.

And it may sound odd to hear this, but I'm OK with that. The hard reality is, absent a total cutoff of funds by Congress or a full mobilization by the President, decisions that are made by local leaders in places like Kirkuk, Diyala, and Ramadi are far more likely to have a decisive impact on the success or failure of continuing operations than any choice made by the occupants of either Capitol Hill or the White House.

But there is one related question, closely related to our trials and tribulations in Iraq and Afghanistan, that I am anxiously waiting to hear a candidate answer, sooner rather than later. That question is simply, What's Next?

More than any other event in recent history, our operations in these two countries gave us a hard lesson in just how difficult it is to conduct regime change and rebuild a nation in the 21st century. To some extent, we were lulled by our relative (and bloodless, at least for our folks) successes in Bosnia and Kosovo. We allowed ourselves to believe in the idea that our ideals and image were powerful enough to change the world all by themselves.

Now the hard reality has come crashing in. Such aspirations, noble as they may be, are enormously expensive in money, manpower, and political capital. Power projection and nation building can no longer be something that the American government simply does on the side and leaves for the military to clean up afterwards. If we are to continue on this path, the interagency coordination, strategic patience, and multi-lateral cooperation that are the hallmarks of successful counterinsurgency and foreign internal defense will have to become core competencies of the US government.

This is the question that now confronts us in this stage of our Republic, and yet it's one that politicians and thinkers on both sides of the aisle seem strangely unwilling to confront. Both sides focus intently on Iraq as confirmation of their core principles, and yet both are unwilling to acknowledge that there are other potential major tasks looming in the distance, ones that will further test whether we truly wish to continue exporting our beliefs and ideals or retreat back into our relative continental safety.

In this election season, I'm looking for the candidate who is ready and willing to articulate a coherent, consistent vision of American power. I'm ready to hear from the candidate who acknowledges that we have taken on both great rights and great responsibilities in the global community, both of which may be more than we can bear. I want to hear if that candidate believes that it is necessary for our prosperity and survival that we continue to provide robust support to fledgling representative governments abroad, or if they believe we are better off focusing that time and energy within our own borders.

This isn't intended to be a leading question. It isn't intended to force the candidate into an answer that will match a carefully focus-grouped consensus. It's intended to be an honest statement and vision of how American power fits into an interconnected, globalized world. I don't presuppose an answer at all, and I'm willing to have my own beliefs and perceptions rudely challenged in the process.

But what I really want to hear from McCain, Obama, Huckabee, Clinton,  Romney, et al, is - What's Next?