A continued escalation of violence in Iraq resulting in more deaths and mayhem, another brutal beheading of a hostage, insurgents’ rockets blasting a hotel where western journalists and contractors live &045;&045; all have in the past week invigorated the debate between presidential candidates and among American voters.

Is there a way out? Should U.S. troops have invaded that country? Which candidate for president has the best chance of managing the war in Iraq, bringing it to a peaceful conclusion and bringing home U.S. troops?

Voters do not have an easy task in sorting out the differences between George Bush and John Kerry in regard to the war in Iraq, one foreign policy expert said. One reason is misinformation. Another is an overall uncertainty about whether the invasion of Iraq has been worth the lives lost and billions of dollars spent.

Dr. Rick Travis, associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Mississippi State University, said many independent voters continue to favor President Bush on the war issue because of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States and a belief that they were tied to Saddam Hussein. Kerry is trying to break that connection.

&uot;I think the American public is very uncertain about how to view (the war), and the way Kerry is asking the American people to view it is difficult,&uot; said Travis, whose expertise is in international relations, international conflict and security and foreign policy beliefs of Americans.

&uot;Kerry is asking us to trust him when he doesn’t have a substantial plan,&uot; Travis said. &uot;And we don’t want to ask ourselves these serious questions. Are the deaths worth it? There is a real sense of perseverance among Americans, who are clinging to a belief that we were justified in attacking Iraq so that all we’ve paid in lives and money is worth it.&uot;

Two key points in Kerry’s proposals on Iraq are sending more troops and getting more support from American allies.

Getting more help abroad indeed may be something a Kerry administration could do, another international relations expert said.

&uot;Our allies are really, really angry with George Bush,&uot; said Dr. Mark Gasiorowski, a Louisiana State University political science professor with expertise in the Middle East, particularly Iran.

European nations likely will not send troops, whether at the request of Bush or Kerry, Gasiorowski said. But they might contribute funds under a new administration.

Especially important, he said, is to get Islamic nations involved, such as Pakistan or Turkey, who could send troops and make the war &uot;a more international effort and help to blunt the points radicals in the Middle East are making. The Kerry people might have some success with that,&uot; he said.

Both political scientists were critical of the Bush style as well as his foreign policies. Travis said a go-it-alone attitude that appeals to many Americans has not played well overseas.

&uot;In the first nine months of the Bush administration, we withdrew from the Kyoto agreement and from the International Criminal Court, and we pursued a ballistic missile defense system that other countries saw as making them more vulnerable,&uot;

Travis said. &uot;For a new president to say in a very gruff fashion, ‘I disagree and we’re doing it our way’&uot; angered U.S. allies. &uot;The no-nonsense Texas style does not work well in international relations.&uot;

Gasiorowski said the Bush decision to invade Iraq is puzzling. &uot;Was it the ideology of his advisers, an attempt to clean up after his father or to win a military victory as a way to win re-election?&uot;

After 9/11, other countries fell in line with the United States and wanted to be supportive. &uot;They signed on with us in Afghanistan but not in Iraq,&uot; Travis said.

And Afghanistan may be one bright spot, Gasiorowski said. &uot;The U.S. has done a pretty good job in Afghanistan, where they are holding elections and maybe will have a stable government.&uot;

Gasiorowski has concerns about the deterioration of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship and decreased American involvement in that peace process. He has concerns about the domestic situation in Pakistan, where there are nuclear weapons and a strong radical insurgency.

The Bush administration has a record on foreign policy and on the war in Iraq. A possible Kerry administration does not. And there is no guarantee the world will rush to help Kerry if he is elected president, Travis said.

&uot;That’s the part we have to buy on faith. Many Americans who are still debating whether we can achieve success are starting to be troubled,&uot; he said. &uot;But going that next step and deciding we were wrong is a very difficult step. We’re persistent in sticking with those beliefs and not changing our minds about the sacrifices people have made.&uot;

Gasiorowski said the Iraq war has one thing in common with Vietnam. &uot;The key similarity is quagmire. I can’t see any way we’ll get out of there easily,&uot; he said. Elections soon will be held there and a new constitution written. &uot;I hope that will go well. That’s the glimmer of hope. The fight over the constitution is going to be severe (among the political factions in Iraq). That could really inflame things.&uot;

Gasiorowsky cited a new report on the future of Iraq. &uot;A new national intelligence estimate said there are three likely scenarios. The best scenario is the continuing instability. The worst is a full-scale civil war in Iraq.&uot;