We have read reports published by various non-governmental actors that nearly three hundred thousand Iraqis have died over the last four years in Iraq after the invasion. There have similarly been nearly 3,300 deaths among the US armed forces. There have also been casualties among other Coalition partners. Given these statistics we are talking here of at least half a million affected families. In addition, there are at least another million internally displaced families in sectarian war-ravaged Iraq.

To this unhappy brew has been added the serious question of a possible attack on Iran. Admiral Michael Mullen, US Naval Chief, has recently remarked that the United States has no plan to attack Iran and that its beefed-up naval presence in the Gulf region is meant to keep the area peaceful. His comment is meant to be consistent with Washington's views that the USA was still interested and that its efforts were focused on a diplomatic solution to resolve the ongoing row over Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme. Apparently, the building up of the US naval fleet is aimed at providing reassurance to 'friends', to show continued 'commitment to this area,' 'to provide the strength and stability' that is needed and 'to ensure that it remains quiet and peaceful.'

Strong words mixed with hope! The unfortunate reality is however slightly different. Controversy and frustration have surfaced not only within the domestic political process within Iraq based on sectarian lines, but also in the interpretation of how to conduct the 'war on terror' and the future role of the USA.

The fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam's regime was marked this time round with demonstrations by tens of thousands in Najaf and Kufa, burning of American flags and demands that the Coalition forces in general withdraw from Iraqi territory and that the USA announce a time-table in this regard.

The powerful Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who commands an enormous following among Iraq's majority Shias, was allegedly behind this show of dissent. This has been followed by the withdrawal from the Iraqi government of six Cabinet members belonging to Sadr's party. This move, while unlikely to topple Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's regime, will nevertheless deal a significant blow to the US-backed leader, who relied on the support of Sadarists to gain office.

On another front, divergence of opinion has surfaced very clearly within the ruling British Labour Party (USA's main ally in Iraq) over the manner in which the 'war on terror' is being conducted worldwide. Hilary Benn, a senior member of the Labour Party, seeking its deputy leadership, has openly disagreed with President Bush's concept of the 'war on terror' and has pointed out that this has only strengthened disaffected extremist groups and given them a sense of shared identity. He has also observed that this war cannot be won by military might alone 'because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives'.

Col. W. Patric Lang Jr. a retired US Army Officer, writing recently in 'Foreign Policy' has given another interesting thesis. He has claimed that US foreign policy mostly 'tends to be predicated on the notion that everyone wants to be an American'. He has gone on to state, "Americans invaded an imaginary Iraq that fit into their vision of the world. We invaded Iraq in the sure belief that inside every Iraqi there was an American trying to get out... Unfortunately, for us and for them, that was not the real Iraq, where cultural distinction from the West is still treasured". The result has been frustration, disappointment and finally rage against the 'craziness' of the Iraqis.

The US policy planners probably forgot that alien people with their own cultural heritage and diversity have to be dealt with on terms consistent with their traditions. Otherwise there can only be catastrophes as evidenced in Vietnam.

Turning to important fall-outs of the Iraq war, one needs to focus first on Iraq. For them, it has been a strategic windfall. It not only uprooted Baathism from Iraq but also pacified a nemesis that had been a thorn on Iran's side since the Islamic revolution in the late seventies. The departure of Saddam has meant Iran's influence extending to every level of Iraq's bureaucracy, Shiite clerical and tribal establishments and security and political apparatuses. A large part of Iraq is now within the Iranian sphere of influence. Iran also knows that their support for Hezbollah, Hamas and the nuclear impasse has paved the way for Iranian regional hegemony in the Persian Gulf. It is true that the chaos brewing within Iraq has made Iran nervous, but they know that the USA, in its own strategic interest, will try to contain the situation. Given such a scenario, they can afford to sit and watch.

The next actor on the list is the Al Qaeda. Daniel Byman, Director of the US Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, Washington has recently remarked that 'before the US invaded Iraq, Al Qaeda was on the ropes' in Afghanistan, Morocco and Malaysia, but 'the invasion of Iraq breathed new life into the organization'. Considered dispassionately, one would tend to agree with such a hypothesis. It does appear that the Iraqi invasion, instead of promoting stability and order within the affected region, and in underdeveloped countries with Muslim populations, has inspired a new generation of young Muslims around the world towards militancy. It has also helped to create a network of so-called 'Jihadists' who are lethal and indiscriminate in the use of improvised explosive devices in their attacks against State infrastructure and civilians. This process has cast its shadow also within Bangladesh.

The United States' problems in Iraq and Afghanistan have also helped the gradual rise of another 'superpower' in East Asia. I am referring here to China. The quagmire in which the US Army finds itself in Iraq, the scandals of Abu Ghraib, and the American failure to deliver security and stability, let alone democracy in post-Saddam Iraq, have greatly eroded US international standing and prestige. China has exploited this scenario of loss in US soft power, by portraying itself as a peaceful, benign and even constructive partner. This has been most evident in its efforts in Africa and in Iran. They have tried to build on their stated philosophy of 'harmonious world order' and a positive image by not only hosting talks on de-nuclearization of North Korea but also sending their political leadership to countries like India and Japan. Their gradual rapprochement with a stronger, energy rich Russia has also underlined the steady re-adjustment in the balance of power. These steps have enhanced China's role in international affairs at the expense of the United States.

The USA, within this changed matrix, needs to understand that multilateral rather than unilateral interventions, will facilitate constructive engagements on international issues. Hopefully, US policy strategists will follow a flexible approach in finding implementable least common denominators. This will enhance their chances of success in resolving intractable problems -- be it on Palestine, climate change and the environment or issues related to trade.

I believe that the United States will remain as the world's greatest economic, military, technological and cultural power, but the continuing imbroglio in Iraq will affect, directly and indirectly, its status as a power broker. In this context, I feel that the future position of the USA, particularly within the United Nations, will be one of leadership, rather than unchallenged domination.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador who can be reached at mzamir@dhaka.net