Why does ending the mess in Iraq have to be all about America? I am waiting for a presidential candidate to propose an Iraq strategy based not only on the interests of American troops and families, but also on the interests of the Iraqis.

I mean no disrespect to American troops. I am with the rest of the country in hoping beyond hope for not a single additional casualty.

But we Americans have unnecessarily gone into a country, bombed its infrastructure and ripped apart its political and civic institutions. Conservative estimates put the number we have killed at roughly 151,000 and the number we have displaced at more than 4 million. While building our palace-fortress embassy in the Green Zone, we have left the Iraqi museums to be looted. We have used the country’s men and women as translators only to later desert them and deny them refugee status, because recognizing that Iraqis must flee their country would look bad.

And yet, the presidential candidates act like they could care less. What level of responsibility will the next president feel in regard to the mess in Iraq that America created?

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards—the three democratic candidates with a shot at winning—all promise to withdraw troops as soon as possible. They want to reduce the number of deaths of American young men and women. And while that is clearly important, as there have already been close to 4,000 American deaths, they are not talking about what happens to the millions of Iraqis.

The Republicans propose staying in Iraq, but their motivation is also what is best for the United States. They want to win! Victory! John McCain, the most notably committed to staying, wants to ensure that Iraq and the Middle East do not become breeding grounds for more terrorists who could bomb us. A quick perusal of the candidate positions on the war makes it plain they are not considering what is best for the Iraqis.

Granted it’s an election year. But the Bush Administration gave two major reasons to invade Iraq. One concerned our safety from weapons of mass destruction. That all turned out to be a lie. The other reason concerned the Iraqis. We were going to bring them a better life, free from economic sanctions and fear and tyranny. So far, that looks like a lie, too.

I want a candidate for president who acknowledges our commitment to a country we have almost destroyed; who talks about how he or she will help the Iraqi government include and address the needs of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds; who has a strategy for transitioning from combat troops to peacekeepers. I want a candidate who talks about rehabilitating a generation of children who have spent the past five years running from bombs, missing school and watching their loved ones be killed in front of them.