Check this link from a leftist liberal site.
The US is currently spending close to $12 billion per month, with a cumulative expenditure of over $600 billion. Over $9 billion US taxpayer's money is reportedly lost and unaccounted for.
Currently 160,000 US troops are deployed in Iraq alongside 8,524 from other countries. 3611 US troops have been slain or missing so far (51% of whom are under 25 years old), with an additional 26,695 injured (20% greivously so). The site goes on with lots of other numbers and statistics. In the end, I guess the question that pops up in everyone's mind is...what price "freedom"?
There are three facets to this whole issue. One, the reason for invading Iraq; two, how much are the American people willing to pay for so-called freedom; and three, what can and should be done now? I'd like to think of myself as a liberal conservative and as a conservative liberal.......a veritable true middlegrounder as it were. Thus, neither far-left nor far-right views shall be subscribed to. However, anyone and everyone is free to comment.

First of all, the reason(s) furnished by the President before the Iraqi invasion has/have been debunked beyond any doubt whatsoever. Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), if any, would have been unearthed by the troops by now; thus, the original premise that there are WMDs that the Saddam government was harboring and cultivating is a myth. The government also alleged that Saddam was a dictator and was instigating acts of terror and genocide against his own peoples including the "innocent" Kurds up north, and that such a reckless/unchallenged dictatorship could very well aid and abet terrorism and should be taken down. Well, there is no right answer to this. The whole world is at peril as far as terrorism is concerned, not just the US. Post-9/11, the US invasion of Afghanistan was, in my view, entirely justified - this was a rogue nation being governed by a band of thugs quite interested in imposing meaningless laws and restrictions on common peoples under the guise of religion. Moreover, they were harboring the man behind one of mankind's most cowardly and dastardly terrorist acts. However, instead of concentrating on and in Afghanistan, the USA decided to diversify its war to include Iraq and is now paying what I think is heavy price. The benefit of diplomatic negotiation is there for everyone to see in the case of North Korea and the kidnapping if UK-sailors by Iran. In conclusion to the first issue, the US should not have gone into Iraq, atleast not without international consensus and support. We are not safer today than before the Iraqi invasion, and if anything, we are probably a bit more vulnerable.

The second issue of what exactly is the price and how much we are willing to pay is a very subjective thing. The conservative in me asks me not to give up at this crucial juncture and the liberal says enough is enough. I'm sure that is the same dilemma we all face. There is unfortunately no right or wrong answer - only time will tell. In part, the answer to this lies in the answer to the next issue - what should be the course of action now?
Well, right or wrong, moral or immoral, stupid or clever, we've gone in, invaded and are now neck-deep. Again, there seems to be no right or wrong answer as to the right course of action at this time - should we withdraw the troops rightaway or perhaps in a phased manner at a later date, or should we complete what we'd set out to achieve and ensure we leave Iraq as a country as opposed to a militant paradise.
There are consequences of sudden troop withdrawl that we must be aware of: militants and warlords will gain in confidence and control, there will be not even a semblance of law and order, the Iraqi government and with it the entire structure of justice shall come crumbling down, and terrorists and fascists the world over shall rejoice at what will definitely be America's most embarrassing loss. A phased withdrawl seems more plausible; however, again, getting out without ensuring certain objectives shall only aid the bad guys. Thus, firstly, we have to identify where we've faltered (failed is not the word I choose to use); secondly, allocate more money and numbers if needbe in order to achieve the targets quickly; and, thirdly, make sure Iraq, its government, law and order, and the judiciary, are strong and durable. Of course, the downside to this is the continuing loss of men and money, but at least, terrorists will not win and the sacrifice of our noble men and women would've accounted for something - a safer world hopefully.
Any question, comments, or suggestions?

Do you know what Mongolia, China, Argentina, Sri Lanka, India, and England have in common that America doesn't share? Read on...
America has a population of 288,378,137 with 51% females and an average household income of $46,242 (link to US census bureau). About 25% of people over the age of 25 hold a bachelors, graduate, or a professional degree. America has the highest per capita GDP of all developed countries, is the third largest country by area and population. But, America never had a woman president; in fact, not even a serious contender for the country's highest job in its 218 year-old history. Amazing, and we talk about being one of the foremost in women's rights and liberation!
Mongolia apparently had the first woman leader in the world: Sühbaataryn Yanjmaa, from 23 Sep 1953 to 7 Jul 1954; Sri Lanka boasts of the first woman Prime Minister in the world: Sirimavo Bandaranaike, from 21 Jul 1960 to 27 Mar 1965; India boasts of the second woman Prime Minister in the world: Indira Gandhi, from 19 Jan 1966 to 24 Mar 1977. In fact, amongst the 100 most influential figures in American history (link to the list), there were only 10 women! Moreover, there are none in the top 25! There was Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of the first great American feminists, she fought for social reform and women’s right to vote; there was Susan B. Anthony, the country’s most eloquent voice for women’s equality under the law; Eleanor Roosevelt, who used the first lady’s office and the mass media to become “first lady of the world”; and, a bunch of writers and socialists who'd "influenced" American life and history. Unfortunately, no one seriously ran for President (I do remember a Moseley-Braun a few years ago!).
Bottomline, folks, is, is America ready for a woman leader? Something we probably miss, being the world's only existing superpower. Can Hillary Clinton do what no one has done before, beat the odds, and defy history? Despite the outcome, one thing's for sure, America's likely come to the party - after her, we should see more and more serious contenders and not just the occasional also-ran. Now it is upto America to decide and vote!