We are closing in on a year now since the invasion of Iraq. American taxpayers have forked over approximately $97 billion and counting. After any investment, it seems proper to reflect on events and weigh the value of return — was it worth it?

However, before reaching that point, the mission must be accomplished. In this case that requires the weapons of mass destruction that President Bush vowed to find be secured. Iraq must also be given the stability and democracy it was promised. It would be foolish to call mission accomplished before achieving the stated goals of invasion, especially if al-Qaida or some other group were to acquire the alleged WMD.

Coalition forces have made significant progress to restore essential services such as electricity and water. Now that essential services are back up to pre-war levels and beyond, the country is still unstable. Iraqi police are murdered; government members assassinated, and U.S. troops killed. Clearly, restoring basic services to Iraq won’t end the violence.

So what will? To answer this question, we must determine the motives and capabilities of the resistance, which is a barrier to stability in Iraq. There are primarily three different groups targeting coalition soldiers, Iraqi civilians or both. The first group is composed of Baath party members who want to regain power. The Baathists know if the coalition leaves without securing Iraq, the inevitable civil war would give them the opportunity they need.

The second group consists of foreign terrorists such as members of al-Qaida, who are probably responsible for the more sophisticated attacks carried out. They entered the country through unguarded borders, which Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., fought hard to secure but ultimately failed as he was brushed aside by the Bush administration.

The third group in the Iraqi insurgency are Iraqis who are upset with the coalition for killing innocent civilians, disrespecting Iraqi culture and religious practice, and for, at least in their view, taking too long to restore civilian services. So long as the coalition leaves with an elected government (as opposed to an installed puppet government) in place, the homegrown Iraqi resistance will lose its purpose and thus, dissolve.

Assuming that happens, we still have the Baathists and al-Qaida to confront. What will stop them from destroying Iraq? The Baathists have no reason to stop fighting. Now that they’re out of power, they are hunted by Iraqi citizens wanting to avenge Baathist atrocities. They will fight to the end. If we are to believe President Bush’s assertions regarding Iraq’s alleged ties to al-Qaida, we should assume their full and continued support of the resistance. According to a congressional report on the Sept. 11 attacks, al-Qaida trained between 70,000 and 120,000 people. If that is true, there will be no end to problems in Iraq.

This is the political problem faced by President Bush. The longer we stay there, the more troops will die, and the more American taxpayers will be hit. The sooner we leave, the sooner Iraq falls into civil war. When Norman Schwarzkopf was asked why we didn’t invade Iraq and take out Saddam in the Gulf War, Schwarzkopf responded by saying that “we’d still be there; we’d be like a dinosaur in a tar pit, we could not have gotten out, and we’d still be the occupying power, and we’d be paying one hundred percent of all the costs to administer all of Iraq.”

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and the search has been virtually abandoned. Where is the VX nerve gas? What about the 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin? The sad fact is that since we invaded Iraq, more WMD have been found in Texas than Iraq. William J. Krar, a white supremacist, was arrested in May 2003 for possession of a sodium cyanide bomb capable of killing thousands of people. He pleaded guilty in November and is awaiting a February sentencing. With free roam of Iraq, thousands of people dedicated to finding the alleged WMD, and the cooperation of Iraqi scientists and other regime members (who now have no fear of Saddam due to his capture), one would think the WMD would turn up — especially given Secretary Rumsfeld’s assertion that “we know where they are.”

And so, we return to the original question: has the Iraq war been worth it? At this point, obviously not, as neither of our stated objectives have been accomplished. And all the evidence says the mission ahead will be very difficult if not impossible.