Last week, Northern Ireland's Protestant Democratic Unionists Party and Catholic Sinn Fein Party, which for decades have been enemies, announced what is being called a historic agreement.

After years of sectarian violence between Protestants and Catholics, DUP leader Ian Paisley and Sinn Fein head Gerry Adams sat at a table together for the first time and agreed to share power in their country.

Although the two never actually shook hands, and in fact hardly looked in each other's direction, this is no doubt good news for the people of Northern Ireland.

It is interesting, however, to look at how Northern Ireland might give us some insight in Iraq and what parallels we can draw from their troubles and the situation we now see in Iraq.

Because my mother was raised in a Catholic family in Northern Ireland during the time which has come to be known as "The Troubles," and because I have many family members still living there, I have kept a close eye on the situation in that country over the years.

As a visitor to Belfast, I was witness to tanks rolling up and down city streets and British soldiers pointing rifles at me.

Today that is no longer the norm.

It appears that peace may be at hand as paramilitary organizations have decided to use politics rather than violence to bring about change.

But if this is anything like what we are to expect with Iraq, then most of us will be approaching middle age before we see any kind of agreement similar to this, as it took almost 40 years for Northern Ireland to get to this point.

Much like the infighting that has gone on in the Middle East for centuries, the fighting between those loyal to the British and those seeking to create a free self-sustaining Ireland has lasted for generations.

After tensions between Catholics and Protestants began to boil over in the late 1960s, Britain decided to send troops to quell the violence.

Initially, the British soldiers were seen as heroes -- much like the way Vice President Dick Cheney expected the U.S. Army to "be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.

Quickly that view dissolved in Northern Ireland, as sectarian paramilitary organizations like the Irish Republican Army and the Ulster Volunteer Force (among others) increased their violent efforts, leading to bloodshed across the country.

Similarly we have seen such organizations grow in Iraq, with militias from both the Sunni and Shia community performing mostly sectarian killings. Not to mention the insurgents who are apparently causing destruction wherever they can.

Obviously the problem in Iraq is much larger than what has been happening over the last 38 years in Northern Ireland.

The problem which we are facing in Iraq deals with a country that has a population and size that dwarfs that of Northern Ireland.

But that only increases the burden this conflict will have on the United States and our military.

When the British sent 30,000 soldiers into Northern Ireland in August of 1969, they entered a country of around 1.5 million people -- about one soldier for every 50 citizens.

It is now 38 years later.

After nine years of negotiations, only now have members of the two major factions even agreed to sit at the same table together.

On the other hand, Iraq's population is somewhere north of 25 million.

U.S. forces number approximately 140,000 -- that means there is about one soldier for every 180 citizens.

Although Republican presidential candidate John McCain claims that "there are neighborhoods where you and I could walk through" in Iraq, there doesn't seem to be much let up in the violence occurring.

Just last Thursday, two suicide bombers killed more than 80 people in a mostly Shiite area of Baghdad.

So, as CNN correspondent Michael Ware recently said, "I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad."

I am certainly not trying to compare Northern Ireland and Iraq in terms of lives lost.

I am also not trying to argue that the U.S. should stay or leave Iraq -- that is another column for another time.

Rather, I think it is necessary for people to realize just how much of a sacrifice our involvement in Iraq is going to be.

With the White House unwilling to set a timetable for withdrawal, perhaps we are looking at a 38-year conflict like Northern Ireland.

Now that we have entered year five of the U.S. occupation in Iraq, how much more time and lives are the citizens, politicians and military of The United States willing to invest?

Are we really willing to spend another 32 years occupying a country that is essentially fighting a civil war?

Much like any number of politicians, I don't have answers for how to solve this problem.

But I certainly hope I'm not explaining to my grandchildren why we are mediating a civil war in Iraq three decades from now.