A recent Salon.com article notes the following:

Lieberman noted that both Bush and Kerry have vowed that the United States will not "cut and run" from Iraq. And in the end, it is that vow -- that commonality of policy positions -- that keeps Kerry from striking out more clearly on Iraq. Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, and he agrees that troops need to stay in Iraq until the country is made stable again. With 44 percent of the American public now wanting to bring U.S. troops home "as soon as possible" -- as opposed to keeping them there until a stable government is formed -- Kerry is hamstrung, both politically and on a policy level, from reaching out to those voters by making an unequivocal stand on Iraq.

The infuriating thing about this kind of analysis is that it depends upon the same kind of anti-intellectualism that characterizes the Bush crowd; i.e., only an obnoxiously blunt policy can be viable because a nimble and intrinsic understanding of the details will be viewed as "equivocating". The unfortunate fact underlying the political challenges that the U.S. is facing in Iraq is that, irrespective of reality, our occupation is seen (internationally as well as domestically) as a George W. Bush operation. To a large extent, Bush is right when he pontificates about his "leadership" in the Iraq war. While Kerry would have pursued military action were he faced with similar circumstances, he would have led the nation (and the world) with infinitely more tact and intelligence. This is the point. The hard political reality is that the world (including Iraq) would be far more accepting of the U.S. occupation if it were continued under a Kerry presidency. Whether Bush was right or wrong about initiating this struggle, he is simply too politically tainted to continue to lead it. Oil ties, familial ties, and a cavalcade of clumsy blunders have sparked protests and dissent; such dissent has indeed (so some extent) given Iraqi insurgents hope for their cause. If the groundswell of opposition to Bush is funneled into a successful effort to replace him with someone who will steadfastly continue our military commitment in Iraq, the subsequent benefits will be " full spectrum" (to steal a phrase) and overwhelming.