Turbodog, there are lots of variables in such a prediction, but the one constant (if a Pres Kerry had wanted to go to war with Iraq) would be the UN opposition to an invasion of Iraq. The US would never have been able to secure a resolution and mount a coalition like the one in the first Gulf War. A coalition, BTW, which did not include brave Senator Kerry - he was one of the very few to oppose that action against Saddam!
"Things aren't going well over there now, but Bush wants to blindly push ahead anyway. He still thinks he is fighting a traditional war and not a guerrila one."
Once again, I challenge the "big lie" that everybody is repeating. It is not massive insurrection over there but isolated terrorist-type activities by a few thousand bad guys in a country of 25 million. They're brutal and their activities are sometimes spectacular and devastating, but I think the TV news definitely gives people the impression that the situation is worse than it really is.
I'm not sure who deserves the credit for the planning and execution of the Afghan and Iraq operations, but the military has been extremely impressive in both cases. The number of guys we've lost is pretty small as wars go, historically speaking.
The traditional war approach - wide battle lines that advance on the enemy and secure ground inch by inch - is exactly what the military did NOT do in Iraq. I don't know if Rumsfeld deserves the credit, the generals or what, but they're doing an awesome job, IMO. Hopefully, whoever is calling the shots in the military won't be replaced should we have a change of leadership in the White House.