Let us start by considering to very significant comments made by the US president and vice-president regarding the Iraq operations and the war on terror. Recall the historic remark of the US president on board a man of war, not located in the war zone, but berthed, reportedly, at the US Naval base in San Diego, of "Mission Accomplished." The only impression that a student of history and warfare could make of the remark is that either the mission had a very narrow focus and the US administration had no idea of the implications of its Iraq venture, or that the strategic planners were not clear about the mission in the first place. The mission remains far from accomplished.

Another very historic remark, made perhaps more out of political consideration rather than conviction, was Vice-President Cheney's comment in May 2005 that the insurgency in Iraq was in its last throes. The very recent Pentagon report belies the VP's optimism.

The obvious consequence of the 9/11 tragedy has been the occupation of Afghanistan as a part of the global war on terror, and the war on Iraq and its subsequent occupation, although the rationale for Iraq war has been changed more than a hundred times (according to the findings of research in the US) by the Bush administration, having at first acknowledged that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11. Without trying to pass a value judgment on these two issues, an attempt will be made to look, in the light of the two aforementioned comments, into the consequence of, and how far has the effort to combat global terrorism succeeded, in reining in this scourge, and which way is America heading in Iraq, almost four years, 100,000 Iraqi and 3,000 US casualties later?

There is a common perception that terror, or to be more particular, the fear of terror, has been exploited politically by the Bush administration, not only to launch the global war on terror in the international front but also to push through many legislation in the home front that would otherwise not have been possible. And whenever things on either front had not gone as per plan, distractions were engineered to infuse the fear psychosis, to prop the sagging support at home. The June discovery of the Miami plot was one such instance to "'expose" a plot of "full ground war" and the destruction of the Sears Tower, even though the alleged cell "had no concrete plans, no contacts with terrorist networks and no equipment, including boots" to quote an analyst. And very recently, with the Pentagon predicting a grim future in Iraq and the Lebanese venture by Israel having gone haywire, if not ending in a fiasco, the alleged terror plot to blow up American passenger airliners in air was discovered and dozens UK Muslims arrested. Some have expressed their scepticism because of the many incongruities of the would be terrorists' "plan." However, it is not the plot, but the very timing of its exposure that raises eyebrows. Yet the Americans are not willing to buy the administration's account. According to recent survey, terrorism, as "the most important problem" with 17%, came second to Iraq with 28%, and in another recent poll only 9% of Americans believed that the US involvement in Iraq was helping defeat terrorism. Many feel that Iraq has defiled the memories of the 9/11 victims if not diluted the efforts to combat global terrorism, by shifting focus from Afghanistan (war on terror) to Iraq. Iraq continues to be the central point of the US global war on terror, and it is convinced that a US defeat here would mean an end to the prospect of a democratic Iraq and fulfillment of bin Laden's aspirations. The grim situation in Iraq has been amply highlighted in the recent Pentagon Report forecasting the frightful prospect of Iraq "tipping towards civil war." The reality is that it is already in the state of civil war but the refrain of the Shia militia so far has prevented it from taking a more serious turn as yet. How long will this remain so is a matter of conjecture only. Insurgency has increased in Iraq, both extensively and intensively. The incidents of attacks (792) per week against the US forces and Iraqis have seen a 24 percent jump from the previous quarter ending mid May 2006. Contrary to predictions, the death of al-Zarqawi has made no difference to the insurgents' activity in Iraq, which implies that the occupation forces have failed in one of the primary responsibilities that devolve on them, that of providing security in the occupied land. So much has been the impact that the British in the south had had to shift tactics and go for counter insurgency operations, vacating one of their bases, much to the delight of the al-Sadr camp that see it as a victory against the occupation forces. According to analysts, the US tactics of search and destroy is strengthening the guerillas. And what are the prospects that the region faces as a consequence?

No doubt there will be regional spillover, if not already, of the Iraq fiasco. Involvement of the neighbouring countries that have a stake in the developments in Iraq and opposed to US presence will increase. There is real possibility of Iraq being governed by a weak center, if not becoming a failed state, with the present configuration of strength in the parliament and the newly acquired Kurdish clout. Both the reconstruction of Iraq, and an acceptable level of stability that comes from a degree of internal security, have suffered and will continue to suffer as result of the US policy.

The general feeling in the US is that the sooner the US devises an exit strategy providing for a measured withdrawal from Iraq, the better position will it be in to combat global terrorismThe fight against global terrorism has not fared any better either. As of now, little more than one-third of Americans believe the US is winning the war on terror. Therefore one is not surprised to see enunciation of a new strategy against terror: "President's National Strategy for Combating Terrorism," released on September 5 by the administration. The report presents an optimistic picture by suggesting that the international terror network has been greatly degraded but many doubt whether the new strategy will be any more successful than the one of 2003. No doubt new strategies must be evolved, both for Iraq and the global war on terror. But for any strategy to succeed, the US must de-link the two. It is now established that the US-led Iraq war has come as a great boon to the Jihadi movement. How is one expected to defeat something that one's action created and is helping to feed in the first place?

The author is Editor, Defense & Strategic Affairs, the Daily Star.