Now that North Carolina has had its say on who will be the next president, it's time for my take on the one currently occupying the Oval Office. No matter what future historians write, I'll always remember George W. Bush as the president who refused to win a war.

When Bush launched the Iraq War in 2003, in no way did I think it would still be a major national concern for his predecessor. Had I known that U.S. forces would be fighting more than five years after the unleashing of "Shock and Awe," letters urging U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Dole and John Edwards to oppose the invasion would have gone out over my signature.

Make no mistake; invading Iraq, ousting and eventually killing Saddam Hussein were the right things to do, and the world owes Bush a debt of gratitude for having the guts to do it. Saddam willfully violated United Nations resolutions. His forces fired on U.S. aircraft practically every day, aircraft that were legally patrolling the Iraqi No-Fly Zone. And let's not forget that the restricted airspace was established to protect Iraqi Kurds and Shiites from Saddam's gunships.

I wasn't dismayed when no active weapons of mass destruction programs were discovered after Saddam's fall. I was relieved. And the invasion did crush the most effective WMD Iraq had in its possession -- Saddam himself. He was responsible for killing at least 800,000 of his own people and more than double that number when you include the ill-fated wars he launched against Iran and later Kuwait.

Getting rid of Saddam was the best thing Bush ever did. However, regime change was not the finish line. Transforming Iraq into a strong, independent Muslim democracy was and, unfortunately, that finish line is nowhere in sight. Had Bush learned lessons from his predecessors, particularly Harry Truman, the world would be celebrating a free Iraq instead of lamenting one more troubled hot spot.

Bush's biggest mistake -- the one that will keep his presidency from greatness -- was appointing and eventually placing his trust in former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld. The former Navy pilot believed that wars of the 21st century could be won on the cheap, with more reliance on technology and less on good old-fashioned quantities of soldiers, sailors and Marines. The fallacy of that thinking was exposed when, shortly after being liberated, Iraqis looted with impunity as American soldiers looked on. Rumsfeld's said looting was an expression of newfound freedom.

Baloney. It was a symptom of not having enough troops in Iraq, not having a solid plan for the post-Saddam Iraq and, most importantly, not listening to the generals and foreign policy experts both in and outside the government who accurately predicted the fallout of overthrowing Saddam, including the strengthening of Iran.

The consequences of Rumsfeld's obstinacy nearly cost the United States the war. Many respected military analysts concluded that Iraq was on the precipice of anarchy in December 2006. In truth, the surge, which began in January 2007, didn't provide the Iraqi government "breathing space" as the president told us. It provided survival.

Now nearly 18 months later, Iraq is more stable but remains a rudderless ship. The security provided by the much-heralded local Sunni militias is evidence of progress, but only a fool would ignore the likelihood that they have responded more to sectarianism than to dreams of a unified Iraq. And who can blame them, given the incompetent leadership and Shia favoritism displayed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Iraq is more secure today thanks to the surge, but it's far from being politically stable -- the only measure that matters when it comes to bringing our troops home.

Unfortunately, bringing home our men and women for good from Iraq will be a job left to the one of the candidates North Carolina voters cast their ballots for yesterday.

I'm sure that most of them cast their votes with an eye to the future. Mine was cast with an eye to the past. I voted for the person least likely to repeat the mistakes of George W. Bush.

Regardless of who becomes our next president, I hope he or she has learned from Bush that before committing U.S. troops to war, the president must first commit the country and him- or herself to winning it.