The next four years of the war against terrorism will be defined by what happens next in Iraq. Will the United States seek allies throughout the Middle East and the world to build support for pulling Iraq back from the chaos of a growing civil war or will it stay a failing course? This rethinking of strategy is the first essential step for the nation to strengthen its hand in Iraq and rebuild its fallen image so that it can achieve its aims not only of stability there but of attracting broad cooperation against terrorism worldwide.

Former Defense Secretary William Cohen wrote this week in the Financial Times, “There is still time to prevail in the struggle to replace the law of rule with the rule of law in Iraq and beyond. Without the support of others, Muslim and non-Muslim nations alike, we will fail. Failure, if it comes, will cast a dark and violent global shadow.”

Sen. John Kerry has shown throughout his Senate career that he understands the way to build strong and lasting alliances is through respect for the ideas of other nations, leadership by example abroad and strict standards for human rights always. These are the traditions of which the United States is most proud and most justifiably proud. It is the way presidents from both parties have led for a generation and, with a few terrible exceptions, for much of the nation’s history.

President George Bush set out on a similar course after Sept. 11 in responding forcefully to al-Qaida in Afghan-istan, but squandered his opportunity to more effectively fight this global war through a fixation on Iraq that has alienated international support, turned good will into resentment and increased the danger to America. It is one thing to remain consistent with a message of support and optimism, but quite another to have your policies deny the reality of a worsening situation.

No one has a clear idea how the United States will depart successfully from Iraq, but the question for voters is which candidate is more able to change course before it is too late. Like any new leader, John Kerry would enter the White House without the burden of a presidential history; he could amend the current strategies, follow his natural inclination toward broader alliances and recast the war in Iraq as an international mission rather than the Bush vs. Saddam battle.

In contrast, the pattern for President Bush, particularly given the Cabinet with which he has chosen to surround himself, has been clear. The White House was impatient with U.N. arms inspectors who turned out to be right, made inadequate efforts to attract a more substantial coalition against Saddam Hussein, belittled intelligence reports that showed deep uncertainty about conditions in Iraq, failed to adequately equip U.S. troops and disregarded the Geneva Conventions in the war against terrorism leading to the Abu Ghraib tortures. It made poor choices, needlessly risking American lives, then ignored the effects of those choices.

.

We endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 based on his humility, optimism, a professed compassionate brand of Republicanism and, after the divisive years between the White House and Congress in the 1990s, his pledge to be a uniter, not a divider. Those traits have arisen occasionally in the last four years, but not often.

Domestically, President Bush can point to accomplishments such as No Child Left Behind and his decision to form Homeland Security. They were good and needed overhauls and they were passed with bipartisan support. But these accomplishments are outweighed by a fiscal policy that answers “Tax cuts” to every question, contributing to record deficits and imperiling programs that serve all Americans: road building and education, economic development and health care.

They are outweighed by decisions about the environment that ignore or suppress science as problems such as climate change become more pressing. They are overwhelmed by the sheer secrecy of an administration combined with an unusual interest in the habits of private citizens.

Sen. Kerry likely would begin his term as president with a solidly Republican Congress; we do not doubt that the health care, deficit-reduction and after-school programs he has outlined during the campaign would be altered considerably as they encountered Congress, and some ideas would not survive at all. Mr. Kerry would have no option but to negotiate to get anything passed, which may be for the best. However, he would also serve as a forceful block on some of the worst impulses of the House, such as the assaults on civil liberties currently in its version of Intelligence reform.

Sen. Kerry would return the White House to a mainstream, outward-looking style of governance, more inclusive by necessity and inclination, more willing to confront the complex and changing conditions in the world and more willing to address domestic issues in an enlightened way. He will face perilous times abroad and at home, but by many measures he seems the more capable of meeting them successfully.