Iraq Debate--Judgement vs Experience etc.

Barack claims superiority based on his choice of being against the war with Iraq he made prior to becoming a U.S. Senator. He could have made the choice based on a coin flip for all I can determine; he does not give any background as to why he made his choice, so I cannot determine whether he made a good judgment or just a lucky choice. After the fact he argues that the war was expensive in dollars and lives; the normal consequences of any war and a "no-brainer". Just being against war generally does not count. As to Hillary's choice, she just climbed on the patriotic "Bandwagon"; choosing to play it politically safe since 70% of the public was for attacking Iraq and the Al-Qaeda "bad guys". I don't see any "fine points" being laid out in the general argument going on about Iraq--past or present.
McCain plays the "History" ploy, that we are in Iraq and so must stay in Iraq as we have been in Japan, Korea, Europe for over 50 years, so that makes it OK to be in Iraq indefinitely. There is one big difference between Japan, Korea, Europe etc. and Iraq--we had the moral high ground in those cases, but do not have the moral high ground in Iraq; since we invaded Iraq on multiple pretenses, not because we were attacked by Iraq, or were being threatened by Iraq. On top of this we will never really "win" in Iraq. Our presence will never be accepted by the Iraqis and those countries that constitute the Middle East. A good example is the Israeli conflict that has been going on since the 1920's. Rockets, suicide bombings, and assassinations will go on and on ad infinitum until Israel is no more. The moslem religion and Arab politics are so intrinsically linked that there is little chance the Israelis and the Arabs will find a way to make peace.
So where is the "win" in win? Do we figure on outwaiting Iran for control of Iraq? The shiites out number sunnis and the Kurds are relatively content with their enclave. Of course the Turks may feel threatened by an oil rich Kurdish enclave giving harbor to terrorists. Do we naively think that we can create a country in the Middle East after our own image? What we have is a tiger by the tail--we can't hang on, yet don't dare let go. What I'd like to see is some clarification as to what our goal is; other than providing security for the Iraqis so that they can become politically stable. And then there is the "War on Terror". How do you fight a war against an idea? Al-Qaeda is not a country but a concept, one linked to a religion. It does not need a "base" from which to attack us or others. Training and supplying can be done in garages, hotel rooms, apartments, open fields, forests, in the mountains, anywhere. Our politicians keep saying that our presence is required in Iraq so as to prevent Al-Qaeda from building bases from which to attack us. Al-Qaeda's air force is someone else's passenger planes, their bombs are strapped on or placed in stolen automobiles, so why do they require a base from which to attack us? If anything judgement can be judged by scrutenizing a politician's arguments and definitions.