"I went through the guy's windshield," the Provo veteran remembered. "They were going to evacuate me for medical care, but I wasn't ready to leave."

He hooked up with a Utah National Guard unit in Baghdad, where he spent 14 months sucking down pain killers as he helped collect intelligence on the then-fledgling insurgency.

Four years later, Heimdal - who at just 34 years old has to walk with a cane - is looking at the presidential candidates in preparation for Utah's Feb. 5 primary. Like many Utahns, the war in Iraq and its future is one of his primary concerns.

Heimdal has ruled out the leading Democrats, all of whom want to pull out combat troops, saying he wants a nominee who won't bow to adversity. But since all of the leading Republicans say they're committed to "getting the job done," Heimdal also is looking at the candidates for a bit of inspiration.

At first he was leaning toward Fred Thompson. Since the former Tennessee senator dropped out of the race recently, Heimdal is now taking a harder look at Mitt Romney.

"I haven't always been a fan," he said. "But there's something about him. . . . I know he'll see it through."

Romney's membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes him a virtual lock to win the Republican vote in predominantly Mormon Utah next Tuesday.

But on the issue of Iraq, Romney has mostly avoided the topic, balancing generic statements of disappointment about the initial handling of the war with vague statements of support for President Bush's overall strategies.

But confronted by an emotional New Hampshire voter last September, Romney stepped out of the fog.

"It is a mess," Romney said. "There is no easy good answer."

Romney still tried to offer one, outlining a post-surge strategy that included first relegating U.S. troops to support roles, then pulling most forces to friendly neighboring nations like Kuwait. It was one of few moments in which Romney distinguished himself from Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee, both of whom have also made Iraq a low-key part of their nomination strategies.

Romney has also set himself up as a bit-less-hawkish alternative to John McCain, who with key primary wins has established himself as the candidate to beat.

McCain stands out among other front-running Republicans not just for his willingness to talk about Iraq, but for his enthusiasm in doing so - particularly in light of security improvements coinciding with the so-called "surge" of U.S. troops last year.

McCain, who has been calling for troop increases since shortly after the March 2003 invasion, has sought to capitalize on the surge's apparent success: "Right From the Beginning," one banner on his Web site cries.

The same site indicates McCain's enduring intention to send even more troops to Iraq. "A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq," the site reads. "More troops are necessary."

The leading Democrats - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards - disagree completely. They are battling over who can get the troops out the fastest.

Edwards said he would have them out by November of his first year in office. Obama said by the start of 2010. And Clinton promised to remove all U.S. combat soldiers by 2013. They believe a troop withdrawal will force the Iraqis to take on more responsibility.

All three agree that the United States would have to keep some military presence in or near Iraq to avoid genocide, keep the region stable and fight terrorists. But none of them want to build permanent bases in the war-weary country.

The leading Democrats also are unanimous in their opposition to the troop surge that McCain is so fond of, saying that while it has helped reduce violence, it has not created any more political stability.

The real fight on the Democratic side has been over early votes that led to the war. Obama has always opposed the war and he routinely criticizes Clinton for voting to give Bush the authority to invade.

Edwards, who was in the Senate at that time, also voted to authorize the war. He has since said he made a mistake. Clinton has offered no such apology.

Instead, Clinton has tried to turn the issue on its head, saying Obama has voted to support war funding, which undermines his anti-war stances.

mlaplante@sltrib.com,

mcanham@sltrib.com