Encouraged by the death of a top terrorist leader and continued progress on the formation of a new government in Iraq, President Bush is gathering his top military and civilian war advisers to plan the U.S. role in the country's future.

The president planned two days of meetings at the mountainous Camp David presidential retreat starting Monday, with national security advisers on hand and top commanders in Iraq connected by videoconference. Read more.

FNC wants to know what you think — What do YOU think the United States' future role in Iraq should be?

E-mail us at speakout@foxnews.com and jump into the debate!

Check out what FOX Fans are saying:

"We don't need to have a role in Iraq's future. We no longer have the military to support it. Once Iraq has a stable government, we should completely pull out. The entire world knows we went in under false pretenses. Keeping a permanent force in Iraq would only turn what allies we still have against us." — Mike (Derry, NH)

"Not only has the U.S. lost, what seems to be, countless lives of our young men and women, but we have also poured billions of dollars into Iraq. Now, we need to ensure that a stable government is established there. The U.S. can't pull our troops out fast enough to suit me. However, to simply pull out now is tantamount to having our troops die in vain and it will be a waste of U.S. funds." — Mike (Rockford, IL)

"The most important role that America can play in Iraq is to facilitate an open society that embraces all religions because true change lies in the hearts and minds of the people." — Steve (Brookings, SD)

"The role of the U.S. should be the same as it should have been all along — get out, stay out, go find Usama bin Laden, and then kill him." — Dennis (Alaska)

"Fledgling Democratic governments need a lot of help to foster freedom and to defend their country. The U.S. would be wrong to let the new Iraqi government flounder." — Richard

"We should get out now and let Iraq break into three countries. Then, we should make a deal with the Kurds for exclusive rights to their oil. Iraq will never be a real country." — Wayne

"Our future role should be just what our leaders are saying — stay the course. The biggest problem in Iraq is not the insurgents, but the 'free press.'" — Jim

"For us to go this far and see so much progress, we owe it to everyone concerned to keep the pressure on. When the terrorists are more concerned with getting arrested by Iraqi police, then the time to pull out will have arrived." — Dan (Norristown, PA)

"We cannot win this war militarily no matter when we leave because the Iraqis are going to be fighting among themselves forever." — Valerie

"To win the peace in Iraq, we need to keep the pressure on the insurgents and follow the lead of our president. When compared to other wars this country has been a part of, one would have to argue that this war is on the right track." — Rodney (San Diego, CA)

"I was with President Bush in Afghanistan, but I would not have attacked Iraq. Who are we to say how other cultures and societies should live?" — John

"Our role in Iraq should be governed by the most explosive situation in the Middle East — the need to forcibly, if necessary, prevent the Iranian government from getting nuclear weapons. If we, or Israel, are forced to act against Iran, our presence in the region becomes even more necessary." — Tom

"I'd like to see the U.S. monitoring Iraq from our side of the Atlantic. Our continued presence certainly isn't helping the Iraqis or the national debt." — Matt

"The future role of the U.S. should be to make Iraq a country where 1) violence will not be present, 2) fear and hatred will not be felt by the people, and 3) terrorism will not be a target for war. What Iraq needs most is a leader who recognizes that peace and security is of utmost importance." — Charina (Philippines)

"Our troops should not be patrolling the streets. Rather, they should move to encampments around major Iraqi cities to monitor and control traffic and ‘hotspots’ on border towns. The Iraqi police and military should be doing the heavy lifting." — Dan (Williamson, NY)

"We cannot abandon Iraq now. Regardless of whether or not we entered on false information, I feel we are engaged in a humane activity — fighting for the freedom of a people who have been brutally oppressed. We need to step up our presence there and continue to fight against terrorism." — Karen

"We need to fully support the new Iraqi government with training, air support, weaponry, special forces and intelligence. This should be done as efficiently as possible so that we can pull back to permanent bases of deployment, gradually reducing the boots on the ground." — Daniel (Tulsa, OK)

"For the U.S. military to leave before Iraq can sustain its government and protect its own people, would be a grave mistake. Even once this has happened, I expect the military to maintain a presence enough to continue its anti-terrorism activities, whether it be in Iraq, Iran, or wherever." — Dave (Ellicott City, MD)

"Truth be told, we need to stay the course just as we did and continue to do in Europe. Why should Iraq be any different? Taking into account how volatile the region is, I don't think we have the option of saying 'take care, Iraq, we'll check back with you in a few years.'" — Anonymous Fox Fan (South Dakota)

"Our future in Iraq will be the same as with every place we had military achievements — we will be there for a long time. We have invested way too much not to have a presence there — not to mention the huge base we are building." — Mark (South Carolina)

"The Iraqis are finally making progress in getting their government going, and we just got Zarqawi. Abandoning Iraq now would be the worst thing we could do. It would look like the terrorists beat us and that we didn't have the courage to keep putting up a fight. This would result in the terrorists gaining a great place from which to operate." — Richard