This is the sixth year in succession that The Hill newspaper has published a Tribute to the Troops. Each time, we assert the same central message — that we, the Capitol Hill community, and the people of America support the men and women of the U.S. armed forces who are undertaking grueling, dangerous and courageous work on our behalf.

But if the core purpose of this special section is unchanging — and even though we are honored to be joined in these pages once again by the commander in chief, President Bush, and all the service chiefs — the political context in which this writing appears has changed dramatically in the past 12 months. The passage of time from one year to the next necessarily affects the tenor of conversation about the military operations in which our troops are engaged.

Last year, far more people across the country took the view that the war in Iraq had been lost.

Some of these people were those who had opposed hostilities from their outset; some, by contrast, were people who supported the war when it began but had come to believe that the damage done by its conduct and setbacks outweighed the reasons for starting it in the first place.

Now, however, after the “surge” in the number of American troops engaged in Iraq, and after clear signs of military progress, fewer people write off our nation’s military intervention as a lost or doomed cause. Partial success has quieted opponents of the war. So have repeated legislative failures to change the president’s policy. It is now widely understood that a change in policy will not come during the Bush years and will arrive only with a new president in the White House.

The fact that a new administration will have taken control of the White House by the time The Hill’s next Tribute is published is the other vital ingredient of the changed tone this year. We are only five months away from an election in which the positions of the two likely nominees could not be more starkly different.

The probable Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), is a man who has adamantly opposed the war since before it was launched. The Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), is a war hero who has staunchly supported the administration’s policy, though not always its execution.

Thus, although the war has slipped substantially out of the news, falling below economic concerns on the list of issues controlling popular, political and media attention, it is certain to assert its importance again as the nation approaches Election Day, Nov. 4.

Even politicians are inclined to talk about “playing politics” with disdain in their voices.

Politics is treated as though it were nothing more than an egotistical distraction from important issues that everyone should be able to agree on.

But it is political debate that will emphasize, on the one hand, the need to honor our troops by bringing them home while restoring America’s respect and authority within the community of nations. And it is political debate that will also put forth the countervailing view: that America and the whole concept of liberal democracy faces an existential threat, that the war against Islamist terrorists must be prosecuted vigorously until it is won, and that withdrawal short of victory would be interpreted by our enemies as defeat and retreat.

Thus we move through an election year in which two fervently held and irreconcilable views will be put to voters. The decision made on Nov. 4 will profoundly affect America and the armed forces that serve her.

Both sides of the political divide couch their utter differences in words of highest respect for the nation’s troops. Those words of respect are well-deserved. We do not endorse policies, but we endorse the praise and the prayers that go out from America to our men and women in uniform.