The voting booth could prove the most unpredictable battlefield of the Iraq war, with Americans conflicted over supporting a tenuous democracy and opposing what some consider an unjust war.

“This one has clearly divided the country,” said Howard Segal, a University of Maine history professor, noting the electorate’s volatility on the war issue even before U.S. troops invaded Iraq one year ago. “That’s certainly not going away.”

The divisions might not go away, but the perception of the war among the all-important independent voters is sure to change throughout the next eight months depending on the progress – or lack thereof – in the war-ravaged country where more than 550 Americans have died.

Recent polls suggest the Bush administration’s postwar efforts might be problematic for the Republican incumbent. Since February, as little as 45 percent of voters approved of the president’s handling of Iraq, where 100,000 American troops still serve more than 10 months after Bush announced an end to major combat operations.

While the president tries to convince voters to stay the course, the likely Democratic nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, must do some convincing of his own.

Despite his recent criticism of the administration’s wartime policies, Kerry has the difficult task, analysts say, of explaining his vote to authorize the invasion to the party’s more liberal base, most of whom opposed the war from its outset.

U.S. Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, was among the 133 House members who opposed the Oct. 8, 2002, resolution authorizing the war.

On the anniversary of the invasion, Allen stood by his vote – a vote against pre-emptive war, he said.

“It’s more obvious now than it was at the time that the administration overstated the threat and ignored information about how difficult it would be to manage postwar activities,” he said, further noting the lack of evidence linking Iraq to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Whether voters will put more weight on the administration’s successes – most notably Saddam Hussein’s capture – or its failings – the inability to find weapons of mass destruction -depends largely on the presence of further turmoil, including U.S. casualties, in Iraq.

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who supported the invasion, acknowledged the postwar reconstruction has been more difficult than the administration had anticipated. As U.S. troops remain in Iraq through the campaign, Collins asked voters to be patient.

“People need to understand that the transition from a brutal regime to a free society will not succeed quickly,” Collins said. “It will take time and commitment, and the worst thing that can happen is that political considerations drive the timetable.”

Although anything can happen in the eight months leading up to the election, Douglas Hodgkin, a Republican analyst and former Bates College professor, predicted a Bush victory if the vote were held today.

“I think the majority of Americans agree it was a good thing to remove Saddam Hussein, and they understand we can’t withdraw too hastily,” Hodgkin said.

Indeed, polls suggest Bush enjoyed a jump in support for his Iraq policy in the two weeks after Hussein’s December capture. But after his approval ratings reached 60 percent in that period, Bush’s foreign policy numbers dropped 15 points as news outlets turned their attention to domestic issues.

Recent American history suggests leading a nation to war – or even winning – doesn’t always translate into victory in the voting booth.

Most recently, Segal noted the failed re-election campaign of the first President Bush, who despite his record approval ratings during the 1991 Gulf War, lost to Democrat Bill Clinton 18 months after declaring victory in Iraq.

Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, admittedly troubled by the “ugly war” in Vietnam, in 1968 declined to seek re-election. Voters, increasingly critical of Johnson’s policies, changed direction and elected Republican Richard Nixon, who told Americans of his “secret plan” to win the war.

“Incumbency is no longer a guarantee,” Segal said.