Statistics can be lamentable figures in a time of war, especially those of the political and economic realms. While we struggle for peace in Iraq, U.S. casualties include approximately 4,000 dead soldiers and almost 30,000 wounded, according to the Department of Defense.

In turn, crude oil—predominantly from the same region—keeps reaching an “all-time high” week after week, according to the Associated Press.

Body counts and prices at the pump are tough to consider, but are undeniable as we recall the past five years of this conflict.

Sure, the numbers speak for themselves as they always do, but no one can speak for the dead—be they American soldiers, insurgents or Iraqi civilians.

In the midst of this decisive election year, the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war is the awaited prime time to focus on our presidential candidates and their stance over this war.

For American citizens, it is a time to scrutinize and analyze these specific views. It is a time to consider how the next president might handle such a colossal pickle. We must question their approaches, and what sort of reason stands behind each one of them.

Let's begin by considering one choice that’s already been made: Sen. John McCain as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. The current war ranks high, if not the highest, on his presidential agenda, and his recent trip to Baghdad is a clear indicator of this.

Since his trip last year in April, in which he assessed that Iraq’s security, at that time, seemed “more upbeat” (but later had to retract that, given proper intelligence), McCain has supported the need for more troops in Iraq and a stronger focus to restructure the CIA.

According to reports by the New York Times, if elected, “Mr. McCain said he would seek to attract corporate leaders to improve management of the Pentagon.” That’s an idea, but considering the state of our current economy, it’s a weak one to say the least.

Then there’s Sen. Hillary Clinton, once—but no longer—the hawk of the Democratic Party in terms of foreign policy. Last year the Wall Street Journal reported some key notes indicating her change in rhetoric from 2002 to 2007.

Apparently, by 2004, she still had no regrets in backing President George W. Bush to invade Iraq, claiming, “I don’t think it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal… I don’t think it’s the right time to withdraw.”

Growing more and more understandably frustrated, by January 2007 she was demanding Bush “extricate our country from this [war] before he leaves office.” Want another flip-flop debate be the demise of the Democratic Party?

Out of the three considerable candidates, Sen. Barack Obama is the only who stood against the invasion from day one.

And his high-profile speech, delivered on Oct. 2, 2002 before Chicago’s anti-Iraq war rally, rings louder today than it ever did then.

“I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances,” Obama said. “What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this [Bush] administration to shove their own agendas down our throats, irrespective of the cost in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

On the fifth anniversary of this tragic war, one thing is for certain. The president of the United States, soon to be, will undoubtedly bear the many hardships of a very dumb war.