IF history teaches us anything, it is that the more complex an operation, the greater the chances of things going wrong. As the number of variables increases, the law of unintended consequences kicks in.

Call it ‘Murphy’s Law’ or ‘Sod’s Law’, but if anything can go wrong, it will. Combine these time-tested laws with the fact that the path to hell is paved with good intentions, and you get the drift. Briefly, then, no good deed ever goes unpunished.

Consider President Bush’s dilemma: his popularity rating is now down to 34 per cent, the lowest of his presidency, and the lowest for any modern American leader. And yet in the aftermath of 9/11, over 80 per cent of Americans approved of him; so this is clearly more a nosedive than a brief dip in numbers. Almost entirely, this sharp decline has been caused by his handling of the Iraq war.

So how did he and his advisers get it so terribly wrong? Why have his supporters turned against Bush and his handling of the war? In the morass of Vietnam, American generals and politicians often spoke of the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’. Currently, there is no light at the end of the Iraqi tunnel. Each option is worse than the others.

Speaking on ABC television in the US shortly before leaving on his South Asian trip, Bush said he was not contemplating a troop withdrawal, nor was he about to change his policy. This is not what Americans want to hear. They are sickened by the daily news of slaughter and mayhem in Iraq. Above all, the drip-drip-drip of American casualties is spreading demoralisation in the very states that supported the war.

But the alternative to the current American presence in Iraq is a rapid pull-out. This would virtually guarantee a civil war, and the fragmentation of the country into its three pre-British components. Would this necessarily be a bad thing? After all, the Kurds, Shias and Sunnis lived in their respective provinces for centuries under the Ottomans.

The problem with such an arrangement in this day and age is that it carries a vast potential for destabilising the entire region. While the Kurd and Shia areas are rich in oil reserves, the so-called Sunni triangle is not. As it is, the Sunnis are nursing a profound sense of grievance as they no longer wield the power they were accustomed to under Saddam Hussein. Without any oil wealth, they will become second-class citizens. Already, the country has become a breeding and training ground for terrorists; think how much worse it would get in a fragmented, lawless Iraq where the Sunnis are nursing a grudge.

In the regional context, Turkey is already uneasy with the degree of autonomy Iraqi Kurds enjoy as they fear this will encourage their own Kurds to continue their battle for independence. If Iraqi Kurds form their own state, this would act as a beacon for Turkish and Iranian Kurds. There have been veiled threats from Ankara, warning of military intervention to prevent this from happening.

The emergence of a Shia state on the Saudi border would set off alarm bells in Riyadh, given the large and largely marginalised Shia population of Saudi Arabia. An alliance between the only two Shia states would be a powerful axis, and one obviously looked at with great nervousness by their neighbours.

In this scenario, the only clear winner would be Iran. So how could planners in Washington have got it all so wrong? Anybody even remotely familiar with the history of Iraq and the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics could have seen what was coming. One problem, of course, was that there was so much focus on winning a military victory that it was somehow assumed that the aftermath would be plain sailing.

After possibly 100,000 Iraqi and upwards of 2,500 allied deaths, the open-ended nature of the conflict is finally focussing American minds. The mainstream media in the US that was so supine before the war started has finally begun asking some tough questions.

Even assuming that Bush launched his campaign with the best of motives, how could his advisers have miscalculated so badly? So they goofed totally on the WMDs. But what about their brave forecast that elections in Iraq would lead to democracy sprouting elsewhere.

Actually, it did to an extent. But the plants that have sprung up in Palestine, and are straining to grow in Egypt, have not produced the results that Washington expected.

The fact is — and again, this was plain for all to see — that in most Muslim countries, religious parties have far more credibility than secular ones. The reason is simple: they have never been in power, and therefore can make all kinds of promises. The exception is Iran, and there the mullahs have a firm grip on power. Liberal politicians have been jailed and reviled, and completely marginalised by the corrupt elites that cling to power in much of the Muslim world. So it came as no surprise that Hamas won in Palestine, and the Muslim Brotherhood did very well in Egypt, despite massive state interference.

Now, there seems no way forward, and no way back. If the Americans stay on in Iraq, their very presence aggravates and intensifies the resistance. If they pull out, they will hasten the break-up of Iraq. But more importantly from Bush’s point of view, a retreat will send a signal to radical groups all over the world that if you inflict enough casualties on the Americans, they will cut and run. And a withdrawal will leave American allies very exposed to cross-border terrorism from Iraq.

The landscape is thus littered with unintended consequences: far more terrorism; more anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world; sky-high oil prices; a richer and stronger Iran; a less secure Israel; and a very jittery Middle East. Few of us could have imagined that in three short years, so much could have changed, and mostly for the worse.

As the endgame approaches, there are only lose-lose options available to Bush. Given the mood in America, and the approaching congressional elections in November, chances are that a sizable number of American troops will be pulled out, and the rest will hunker down in their fortified camps.

Immediately after the actual war ended, a triumphant Mr Bush proclaimed “Bring ‘em on!” This macho war cry might serve as an epitaph for the latest American misadventure in the Middle East.