Lines drawn in the sand over the war in Iraq

The United States led the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003.

Five and a half years and more than 4,000 American lives later, U.S. troops remain overseas.

The cost of the war is not just in blood, but also dollars – close to 600 billion of them.

Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama have unveiled their plans for handling this conflict, but, according to one local expert, those plans simply aren't receiving the attention they were paid during the primary season in this run up to the Nov. 4 general election.

"That's for obvious reasons," said Stephen Maynard Caliendo, an associate political science professor at North Central College in Naperville and CBS2-TV political analyst. "The economy seems to have taken center stage."

Both candidates have verbally sparred over their respective outlooks on the situation in Iraq. McCain has criticized Obama for his stance against the troop surge he believes has succeeded in reducing violence there, and Obama has criticized McCain for supporting the war in the first place.

"They each have a claim as to what was and was not successful," Caliendo said, "and whether they're right or wrong really depends upon what you're looking at."

Caliendo also said the candidates' outlooks on the entire situation will surely change once one of them is in the White House and has "access to intelligence only a president can get."

Until then, though, it appears that Obama will continue to urge "responsible withdrawal" while McCain will continue to push for "victory," Caliendo said.

But what do those phrases really mean, and how would each candidate transform them from campaign slogans into successful actions?

In significantly different ways, Caliendo said.

"McCain believes we should keep U.S. forces in or around Iraq for an extended period of time, either in combat situations or in a peace-keeping role," Caliendo said. "He believes that we need to maintain a military presence there in order to maintain stability in that region.

"Obama, though, seems committed to minimizing the amount of time Americans are there, and handing off the responsibility of running the country to Iraqis."

Recently, though, Obama sounded a slightly different tune about the war in Afghanistan, suggesting the U.S. should consider taking military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. Caliendo said McCain likely feels the same way, but believes Obama "just shouldn't be talking about it."

"Probably at the end of the day their thoughts about Pakistan aren't that different, substantively speaking," he said.

All of that said, which candidate would have the advantage in making his vision of the United States' ongoing war on terror a reality?

Caliendo said Obama would have the edge, and not just because the Democrats will likely remain the majority in both houses after the election. He said Obama will be more likely to have the rest of the world's support in his endeavors.

"Obama's approach would mark to the world a change in policy from over the last eight years," Caliendo said. "A change that will probably be welcome to most of our allies."