The presidential election in the United States will be watched closely, not only by Americans but also by the world, because the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism hang in the balance - and voters know it.
Polls consistently show that Iraq remains at the forefront of voters' minds. And in two of the three presidential debates, Sen. John Kerry and President Bush addressed their differing positions on foreign policy.
Though both candidates assert that American troops cannot leave Iraq until the nation is stable, Bush and Kerry differ on how to bring stability and democracy to Iraq.
Kerry's major departure from the Bush doctrine is his belief that the war and reconstruction should have been approached multilaterally. But such a move could prove challenging regardless of who is president.
"Bringing democracy to Iraq will be exceptionally difficult," said Dan Byman, a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. "Few allies are going to want to go in because the situation seems so poor. (Kerry) might be able to increase allied participation by making major concessions in who's running the show."
Other experts say Kerry will be in a better position to bring reluctant allies on board than Bush.
"Kerry conceives of the war on terrorism as an ongoing effort that will require lots of cooperation with lots of other allies. ... That means lots of intelligence sharing and lots of police work," said Michael Tierney, professor of government at the College of William and Mary.
In contrast, he said, "The Bush administration has shown they are willing to use military force even in situations where it's not obvious."
In debates, Kerry and his running mate, N.C. Sen. John Edwards, stressed the human and fiscal costs the country has incurred in Iraq and said that they'd spread the burden.
