On May 1, 2003 George Bush stood aboard the USS Lincoln, a U.S. aircraft carrier, and boldly gave his infamous "mission accomplished" speech. The fight to bring down Saddam was seemingly over.

Two and a half years later, it isn't over. We are still in Iraq, now fighting to topple terror instead of Saddam. Earlier this week, we were reminded just how real the conflict still is.

As of Nov. 1, 2,026 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq and more than 15,000 have been wounded. Of those killed, 573 were 22 years old or younger, according to the Defense Department's Web site.

Iraqi civilians have also faced the brunt of insurgency attacks. In a report titled "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq," Defense Department officials estimate that close to 26,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed between Jan. 1, 2004, through Sept. 16, 2005.

Although the past month saw the ratification of a draft Iraqi Constitution, the violence and instability preceding and following the vote prompts the question of whether the loss of so many young servicemen is still absolutely necessary.

One in every three and a half soldiers being killed is under 22 years of age. The loss of life is always a somber event. But when the life lost is so young, it raises serious questions regarding what is being won and what is being lost.

Concerns about the loss of such young lives were raised early on in the war by some of the military's own personnel. Maj. Gene Delaune, a U.S. Air Force reserve physician, told a Minnesota public radio reporter in 2003, "I don't think in our generation we have seen this amount of harm done to young people,"

Perhaps had Congress and the President listened to former Chief of Staff Eric Shineski and sent several hundreds of thousands of troops to secure Iraq, fewer lives would have been lost to begin with.

Regardless, things do seem to be following the course the president wishes to follow. Just recently we have seen the ratification of an Iraqi constitution. Elections to fill positions are scheduled to take place in mid-December. These are certainly marks of a natural progression of a democratic Iraqi state.

That positive news is welcomed and overdue from a place where good news comes at junctures that are few and far in between.

But if the elections don't go smoothly, how much longer will people our age continue to sacrifice their lives for a mission that is already "accomplished."

Allan J. Comeau, former president of the Inland Southern Psychological Association and a member of the clinical faculty at UCLA, summed up the question perfectly for the San Bernadino Sun when he said, "You already have 2,000 dead. (That) is a big, big number. Where is the point when you can no longer justify the loss?"

This war seems to revolve around justification. First, it was the supposed existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction that justified our entry. Then it was Saddam Hussein who justified our occupation of Iraq. Now, the constitution and elections

will justify the loss of 2,000 plus servicemen and more than 500 college-aged soldiers.

Ten, 20 or 30 years down the road if Iraq is a beacon of democracy in the Middle East then this mission will go down as a success. It just remains to be seen how much more life, especially young life, it will cost to finally say "mission accomplished."