Quote:
though that's probably an impossible task given the state of things- we don't have too many choices at this point

You just answered your own question.

Kerry hasn't distinguished himself from Bush in how he'll handle post-war Iraq because Bush and his administration have painted us in a corner. We were in for a dime, and now we're in for a dollar (or many billions of them.) The only way out is to do the same thing we did to Japan, Germany, etc. -- rebuild. The alternative, walking away and leaving the country in shambles, is not a very good idea, for reasons so obvious I won't mention them here.

The thing that would be different, other than at least an *effort* to bring other countries into the mix, is the presentation. Just as many prefer Bush for his straight-ahead, no-waivering "even if I'm wrong, I'm certain" philosophy, many prefer Kerry's "I think this is right, but I'm open to other points of view" approach. Now, I can't take the viewpoint of a non-American, but given the way America's goodwill has been squandered since 9/11, I'd wager that there are a lot of people out there who'd like to see more "read and react" than "decide and enforce" from the next President.

So, as you said, handling post-war Iraq is one issue that these candidates simply can't fight over. But don't underestimate the power of a change of face in swaying more nations to pitch in on the rebuilding effort.