These kinds of questions, about the recent low-profile approach of Condoleeza Rice, US Secretary of State, have been increasingly making the rounds in the world media for quite some time.

When, in February 2005, riding high on the wave of ecstasy after his re-election, President Bush pitched his close associate and national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to take charge of the highly ambitious second-term foreign policy agenda as secretary of state. She kicked off her stint with very loud -- and rather pompous --claims about making a difference and running the show with more authority and insolence.

Already a star of the Bush cabinet, who had a major say in shaping foreign policy, she assumed the charge of her new assignment on the high note of charisma and glamour. But two years down the road, today, she seems to be drifting towards insipidity and confusion.

Ever since the departure of a heavyweight like Donald Rumsfeld, after the poor performance of the Republicans in the mid-term elections, over the Iraq policy Rice has been keeping a relatively low-key profile.

Particularly, the last two months have seen unprecedented intrusion from others into her domain. Robert Gates, new US defense secretary, within days after taking charge, was in Baghdad on a fact-finding mission.

He was followed by Hillary Clinton, the new aspirant for the Oval Office, in mid-January. During this unofficial visit, Clinton held detailed sessions with Iraqi Premier Nouri al Maliki, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, as well as the President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf.

Her visit was followed by another very hectic tour to the region by Robert Gates, who covered seven countries in five days. During this extremely hectic tour, Mr. Gates remained involved with the regional leaders as well as with Mr. Tony Blair -- apparently stepping into the domain of Rice.

As Mr. Gates reached Washington after completing this tour, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi embarked upon a yatra of the region. Just like Hillary Clinton, Pelosi also visited Baghdad, Kabul and Islamabad along with a delegation of lawmakers including Tom Lantos, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ike Skelton, Chairman of the Armed Forces Committee and John Murtha, chairman of the subcommittee that overseas the Pentagon's appropriations.

This kind of freelance diplomacy is obviously not a new phenomenon in US history, but its intensity and timing have certainly given birth to various queries regarding an indirect attempt by the opponents to erode and challenge Rice's influence.

Interestingly, at a time when Robert Gates and a string of American lawmakers are busy exploring diplomatic channels in Iraq and Afghanistan, and directly invading her territory, Rice has kept herself away from the two hot-spots and remained relatively silent. Even her advocacy of Bush's new Iraq policy lacks her trademark enthusiasm.

Perhaps it is this "low key" approach that is being taken by the media as a sign that she is losing luster and influence. One explanation for her low profile on Iraq and Afghanistan can be traced to her intention to divert attention from the two mega -misadventures of the Bush administration that have seriously bruised the Republicans.

Apparently, President Bush and his team have reached the point of exhaustion over their ill-planned Iraq and Afghan adventures that have so far yielded nothing but loss in all the possible forms -- be it human lives, billions of dollars, or the Congressional defeat.

Rice's growing interest in the Palestinian issue is a further corroboration of the fact that the she is now trying to cool down the current thrust of the anti-Bush drive by "changing the subject."

This factor aside, the fact of the matter is that Condoleeza Rice has certainly lost influence over foreign policy in general. The incessant series of failures in the realm of foreign policy has naturally taken its toll and demoralized her.

Gone are the days of her bold and -- literally -- bullying propagation of Bush's belligerent agenda, now a defensive tone is the most visible feature in her communications. Indubitably, the unabated failures have their own impact, and are pushing her to take a back seat to Robert Gates, who has literally become a globetrotter for propagating American foreign policy.

Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.