The coalition forces are seemingly helpless in the face of these raids by an invisible enemy and their morale must be fast degenerating to breaking point. The other day I was chatting with a young friend of mine who works as a filing assistant for a major news agency and she showed me some figures regarding the casualties of the Iraq war so far. According to these figures, out of a total of 359 US troops killed 221 died since the end of war, and out of a total of 51 UK troops killed 18 lost their lives over the same period. The toll among Iraqi forces is, of course, much higher -- according to an unofficial thinktank estimates, between 4,895 and 6,370 were killed during the war, and the number of Iraqi civilians killed, again according to the same unofficial source, is between 7,784 and 20,000 which is obviously a very rough and largely unverifiable estimate. The toll among journalists and media workers killed is more accurate -- 19 dead. These figures of course do not take into account the number of international and Iraqi aid workers who were killed when aid agency complexes -- like the UN building in Baghdad -- were bombed, neither the deaths resulting from attacks since the beginning of November, like the 18 Italian troops killed by a car bomb explosion in Baghdad or the 17 US soldiers who died when their Black Hawk helicopters were shot down near Fallujah. As I sit writing the current London Letter, I can hear the BBC newscaster reporting that the American death toll in Iraq has now crossed 400. So far the British troops seem to have been luckier than their American counterparts, but that is mainly because of their relatively small presence and because, unlike American troops who are spread far and wide, they are mostly concentrated in and around Basra, which has apparently been made more secure than other parts of Iraq.

The cost of maintaining the coalition apparatus in Iraq at working order level has already reached astronomical figures, both for the UK and for the USA and, of course, the major share of this burden on government exchequers in both countries comes out of the pockets of the taxpaying public. In the UK, although the government is having to struggle hard to balance the ledger, so far there has not been too much public outcry, largely because of the fact that there exists, for the time being at least, some kind of a feel-good element in the employment and industrial sectors. In the USA, on the other hand, the situation is much more critical. George Bush has managed to coax the Senate into granting $87 billion (£52 billion) for his war chest out of which $64.7 billion has been allocated to the US military to finance America's occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan compared to just $18.6 billion towards the reconstruction of Iraq. But while the American exchequer perhaps feels justified to spend such a massive sum on military operations, there is another side of the picture.

George Bush's America, the wealthiest and most powerful nation the world has ever known, is being gnawed away from the inside by persistent and increasing poverty. More than three million Americans have become unemployed since Mr Bush took office in January 2001 and there is as yet no prospect in sight for them to find new work in an economic recovery process characterised by joblessness of unprecedented dimensions. And this is only the tip of the iceberg, so to say, the overall picture is much more desperate and dismal. According to latest estimates, nearly 35 million Americans -- one in eight of the total population -- have already slipped below the poverty line, and over 13 million of them are children, thus making the child poverty rate and life expectancy in the US the worst of all the world's industrialised countries. The bulk of these jobless, poor Americans are considered to be "food insecure," which means they don't know where their next meal is coming from. And these estimates are not arbitrary statistics, they are very much official -- the US Department of Agriculture itself has categorised roughly 10 million of them as experiencing "real hunger," defined as an "uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food due to lack of resources to obtain food."

So this is the picture in the US -- or at least parts of it -- with presidential elections just about a year away. The poor and the hungry in the US are issued food stamps, which are part of the government aid programme of last resort. The number of Americans now surviving on food stamps, since Mr Bush took office, is estimated at 22 million. But these food stamps are worth only about $160 (£100) a month on an average, simply not enough to buy food for a family with no other income. A number of charitable organisations -- with the help of private donations and food brought from local producers by the government -- are running food banks or food distribution centres in various parts of the country. These are in effect "soup kitchens" which provide the people with the barest minimum to survive, and adult members of families dependent on them frequently have to skip meals or eat less in order to make sure that the children have enough. That's how the citizens of the world's sole superpower -- not all of them, of course -- are struggling to make both ends meet while their leaders are busy making the world free of terrorism and tyranny.

Meanwhile, following a devastating CIA report, described as an "appraisal of situation," that the guerrilla war in Iraq was in danger of escalating out of US control, the White House has drawn up emergency plans to accelerate the transfer of power. The report is an internal CIA document which carries an endorsement by Paul Bremer, the civilian head of the US-led occupation of Iraq, and according to it the insurgency in that country is rapidly gaining ground among the population and the estimated strength of the insurgents is at least 50,000. "The resistance is broad, strong and getting stronger," says the report and warns that the US is almost certainly "going to lose the situation unless there is a rapid and dramatic change of course."

Is the strain beginning to prove too much for Mr Blair?

There is no direct answer to that question yet, but it certainly crossed the minds of many on Wednesday, 26th November, when it became known that a doctor had been urgently summoned to No. 10 Downing Street following complains of acute stomach pains from Mr Blair. It was probably no more serious than simple acid indigestion or flatulence caused by gastric reflux, but what added to the concern was that only last October Mr Blair had been taken to hospital with a heart problem, albeit minor. There is no denying the fact, however, that at the moment the Prime Minister is not looking at his best. As he arrived in Parliament for the annual Queen's Speech on 26th September, he looked tired, pale and dispirited as though he had either spent several sleepless nights or just woken up from a nightmare.

There are, admittedly, several reasons for Mr Blair being stressed. Leaving aside Iraq, which is now privately acknowledged by some members of the higher echelon of Whitehall as a mistake of the gravest magnitude, there are domestic issues capable of seriously disrupting the PM's political future. One is the looming publication of the Hutton Inquiry's report into the alleged suicide of the Ministry of Defence scientist Dr David Kelly, which may contain damaging information about Mr Blair's personal role in the handling -- or mishandling -- of the affair. And the most important factor that has now changed the dynamics surrounding Lord Hutton's report is the departure of Iain Duncan Smith as Tory leader and the emergence of Michael Howard to replace him. If IDS still remained at the helm of his party when the Hutton Report came to be debated in the Commons, Mr Blair would probably be able to fend off his attacks with ease.

But Michael Howard is a different proposition altogether. He is the most skilled, cunning and ruthless leader the Tory party has had since Margaret Thatcher and he could be a lethal performer in the political arena. Just days after the change in Tory leadership, the media baron Rupert Murdoch, owner of Britain's largest selling tabloid daily The Sun as well as the Sky TV network, gave broad hints that he might consider throwing his weight behind Mr Howard if he seemed to be taking the "right steps in the right direction." It was not immediately clear what Mr Murdoch meant by the "right" steps and the "right" direction, but it must be borne in mind that The Sun's support was significantly instrumental in ensuring the landslide victory of Tony Blair's New Labour over John Major's Tory party.

One inherent flaw in Tony Blair's nature -- I use the word "flaw" because I don't know what else to call it -- is that while he displays an eagerness to be everyone's flexible friend, he also shows no compunction about cutting down to size a friend who he suspects of becoming a threat to him or an obstacle in his path. As a columnist friend remarked the other day, "Tony Blair is always keen to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare." For example, in the same week he played the gracious host to both President George Bush and Jacques Chirac of France, two leaders representing utterly different and opposite world views and making no secret of their dislike of each other, probably believing that he can get along with both of them equally well and not considering the risk that both these men may come to distrust him equally.

On the other hand, consider Mr Blair's relationship with the Chancellor Gordon Brown, both past and present. Gordon Brown used to be Tony Blair's closest friend in the days when, as newly elected labour MPs, they shared the same Commons office from where they together hatched the blueprint for New Labour. Today, after six years of being in their respective positions, the two most powerful men in the government are practically not on speaking terms. Gordon Brown is grooming himself to be 10 Downing Street's next incumbent, while Tony Blair is blocking his next door neighbour's every move to become a serious contender. Recently the Prime Minister turned down two direct appeals from the Chancellor to join the Labour party's National Executive Committee, choosing, instead of his one-time ally and current rival, two relatively junior ministers and one party official to fill three vacant NEC seats. This has led to further strained relations between Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street and provoked a well-placed Labour source to remark, "It is surprising, arbitrary and not in the best interests of the Labour party." Well, politics is a game that two can play at and when the players are more or less evenly matched, the result may not be predictable but the game itself is always worth watching.