Last Sunday, the long-awaited elections sought by freedom's new crusaders confirmed something everybody knew. The Shiite population represents a majority in Iraq. What else?

The Sunni community has been "democratically" sidelined and even if some of them are being tempted to join the new constitution drafting process, it is unlikely that they will be representative of their community. And the future status of the Kurds remains unsolved.

Although these elections, according to Arab press reports, had "no legitimacy, no credibility, no democracy", they were supported by most of the neighbouring Arab countries, who feared the outbreak of civil war in Iraq, which could lead to partition.

But isn't that where the country now seems to be heading?

If the Sunni nationalists did not succeed in their attempt to derail the voting process, can the new Iraqi Shiite leaders govern the country by themselves?

As for the occupation forces, United States President George W. Bush has just made it clear that "they could stay at the same level at least until 2006". British Prime Minister Tony Blair used the bolder expression that they would be withdrawn "as soon as possible". The reality is that nobody knows.

Actually, the Bush administration may be in the process of losing the war in Iraq. And, at home, one wonders if it has not already lost it.

First, on the ideological side, the neoconservative vision behind the idea of invading and occupying an oil-rich Arab country that posed no threat to America is coming to light.

The inanity of the "spreading freedom to the world" argument is now less accepted by an increasingly worried political class.

The need for a nation and the availability of a local class of "democracy importers", to quote Professor Zaki Laïdi, are necessary elements for spreading democracy.

None of this exists in Iraq. "No Iraqi regime will ever succeed if its political project is limited to keeping to the US pattern," Laïdi adds.

Second, on the military side, the level of troops has constantly increased to reach 150,000. But the results are the same.

When Bush asked Congress to authorise an additional $80 billion (Dh 293.6 billion) in excess of the budget last week, US Senator Edward Kennedy called it "a new Vietnamisation process".

The cost of both the invasion and occupation has now been estimated at $250 billion (Dh917.5 billion) four times the amount experts had planned.

This has started making a growing number of American politicians uncomfortable. Especially when the budget deficit already stands at $418 billion (Dh1.534 trillion).

Third, and more significant from a human point of view, the American population is getting tired. The 1,400 or so US soldiers who have been killed in Iraq are weighing increasingly on troubled American minds. And those who have "just" been wounded, even more.

But, according to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, American soldiers wounded in this war have the highest chances of survival 98 per cent.

Improved protective equipment, coupled with the efficiency of the Forward Surgical Teams and Combat Support Hospitals explain why whoever is not shot dead instantly has a greater chance of survival.

Yet, irrespective of the quality of surgical institutions, wounded soldiers are a visible, lasting and negative manifestation of the war.

The Bush administration is doing whatever it can to hide the figures wounded soldiers usually come back in the middle of the night at the Air Force's Andrews base, without any media coverage.

But the growing number of wounded soldiers cannot be hidden forever. According to the Media Research Centre of Los Angeles, quoted by the French daily Le Figaro, 2,076 soldiers were wounded during the first nine months of the conflict, against 8,296 during the 14 following months.

Television stations prefer not to show what could be seen as an "act of disloyalty", says the Los Angeles Times. But the mass-circulation newspaper USA Today published a front-page article two weeks ago that would have been inconceivable just six months earlier.

Talking of the "American invasion", the daily reported in detail the complaints of the Iraqi Islamic Party, which had called for the boycott of the elections.

These complaints included the removal of all former Baathists and not just Saddam loyalists from the government and the disbanding of the army; the building-up of new military bases feeding Iraqi suspicions that the United States wants to stay and control Iraq's oil; the appointment of incompetent and corrupt administrators in the aftermath of Saddam's fall and the failure to quickly mobilise for reconstruction.

As a conclusion, USA Today presented a Gallup poll showing that Americans are now equally divided between those who think that troop strength in Iraq should remain at present levels; be reduced; be increased; or that troops should be completely withdrawn.

It is unlikely that the Iraqi issue will be settled through military means. A political process based on eye-wash elections will not help either.

The situation demands a complete change in thinking, including now the arbitrage of religious powers, as Bush's only answers are speculative threats against Syria and Iran.

A recent trip to the United States confirmed that the population is getting increasingly nervous about contradictions of their country's foreign policy. How long will it take before this concern reaches Washington?

Before he communicates with God, Bush should start listening to his people.