There is a widespread feeling that the Iraq war will probably be a campaign issue in the general election. It has waxed and waned as an issue among Democrats.

Stratfor, a private intelligence agency, just published a look back on the five years of the Iraq war. While it takes a few minutes to do, we recommend spending a little time with the analysis. Can any thinking voter do less? It will serve to sharpen your memory of events and to crystallize the issues.

We found one point to be of special interest: There is less difference among the candidates than one might expect. The report notes the following:

As we have argued in the past, the actual distinctions between McCain’s position at one end (reduce forces in Iraq only as conditions permit) and Barack Obama’s position (reduce them over 16 months unless al Qaeda is shown to be in Iraq) are in practice much less distinct than either believes. Rhetoric aside — and this is a political season — there is in fact a general, but hardly universal, belief that goes as follows: The invasion of Iraq probably was a mistake, and certainly its execution was disastrous. But a unilateral and precipitous withdrawal by the United States at this point would not be in anyone’s interest. The debate is over whether the invasion was a mistake in the first place, while the divisions over ongoing policy are much less real than apparent.

Stratfor’s endgame? The United States is now providing an alternative scenario designed to be utterly frightening to the Iranians.

This will eventually be a debate question for the candidates.