TURNING a 200,000-ton super-tanker is not an instant manoeuvre: by the time the changed angle of the rudder and the reversed propellers begin to have an effect on the ship’s momentum, it has moved many miles.

So, too, American policy: after three years of fierce debate and opposition, it seems that the Bush administration is finally re-thinking its options in Iraq. But 3,000 American lives and $400 billion later, the debate over the Iraq policy has acquired a new urgency. Suddenly, the key words in the American and British media are ‘exit strategy’, and every way out of the quagmire is being explored.

Lending an analytical edge to this discussion is the Iraq Study Group, headed by the Bush loyalist, James Baker III, the American secretary of state under the elder Bush. Incidentally, Baker helped to mastermind the younger Bush’s capture of the White House. And he led the legal challenge at the time of the highly controversial vote count in Florida in the deadlocked presidential elections of 2000. So Baker’s presence on the Iraq Study Group indicates that this is not some exercise in spin, but a serious effort at finding a face-saving way out of the mess.

Until a few short weeks ago, before the establishment of the Group by Congress, the rhetoric from the White House was still upbeat, and Bush insisted that he would never “cut and run”. For his part, Tony Blair was equally bullish about “staying the course”. What, then, has changed the entire framework of debate? Why have American and British ambitions suddenly shrunk from transforming Iraq into a “vibrant democracy at the heart of the Middle East”, to hoping for a stable Iraq?

The answer, in a word, is “elections”. On November 7, Americans will vote for scores of Congressional seats, as well as a number of state governors. The results could transform the face of American politics. After Bush’s re-election in 2004, his Republican supporters revelled in the prospect of ruling America for the foreseeable future. The Democrats were in disarray, and Bush seemed to enjoy solid support for his Iraq adventure. Although American soldiers were dying, and the Pentagon was spending billions on maintaining the US presence, the electorate nevertheless saw these as necessary costs in their “war on terror”.

But in two short years, the whole political landscape has changed. Columnists who had supported the war have admitted their error. Leader writers are urging Washington to reconsider its policy. But above all, Republican candidates are feeling the heat from their constituents, and are transmitting it straight to the White House. Suddenly, a presidential endorsement has become the kiss of death, and a visit from Bush to address a rally is the electoral equivalent of a strike from a B-52. As candidates scramble to distance themselves from the war and its radioactive fallout, Bush and his neo-con cabal find that to minimise their losses, they have to be seen to be exploring alternatives to a disastrous policy in Iraq.

The reality is that weeks and months of carnage transmitted to TV screens — even with sanitised images — have sapped American resolve. The same thing happened in Vietnam three decades ago. But more than the rising number of body bags is the lack of any progress. Indeed, things are getting progressively worse, and as they fall apart, so does the support for the war.

One definition of madness is that you repeat your unsuccessful actions again and again in the expectation that suddenly, the outcome will be different. In a democracy, public opinion can force a change of policy in a way it cannot in autocracies. Although it has taken three years of hell in Iraq for the “tipping point” to arrive, we have reached a stage where “more of the same” is no longer an option. While the report will not be formally presented until after the November elections, leaks indicate that the entire gamut of alternatives are under review. Voicing the anger and frustration over the war, here is Simon Jenkins in the Guardian of October 25:

“(Iraq) has been turned by two of the most powerful and civilised nations on Earth into the most hellish place on Earth. Armies claiming to bring democracy and prosperity have brought bloodshed and misery worse than the most ruthless modern dictator. This must be the stupidest paradox in history. Neither America nor Britain has the guts to rule Iraq properly, yet they lack the guts to leave.”

Given the current level of dissatisfaction with the current situation, it is sobering to re-read Graham Turner’s long three-part, three-year old article (The new empire, June 16-18, 2003) in the Daily Telegraph. Turner travelled 20,000 miles over five weeks, meeting scores of ordinary and eminent Americans, and wrote at the end of his odyssey:

“My conclusion... is that although the war in Iraq may have provided a dramatic demonstration of Americans’ overwhelming might, we ain’t seen nothing yet. In military terms, the United States is a generation ahead of the rest of the world. Its hi-tech capabilities make everyone else look Neanderthal... Military dominance, moreover, is but one aspect of America’s overwhelming power. The United States produces more than 30 per cent of the world’s goods and services... Yet despite their awesome dominance, many Americans confess to an underlying fear and insecurity... They have become uneasy citizens of the world they bestride...”

Clearly, three years of brutal warfare have increased this insecurity, while teaching the most gung-ho neo-con a little humility. Even Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have learned that there are limits to American power. Clearly, this is a lesson that has to be learned by every generation. After the debacle in Vietnam, there was a strong feeling that America should not intervene abroad. Iraq has reinforced this sentiment.

In the western rush to claim victory and go home, there is a real danger that the violence in Iraq, already spiralling out of control, may worsen into a full-fledged civil war that leads to a de-facto partition of the country. But if, as seems likely, it is the allied presence that is causing much of the violence, then the exit of American troops might be the least bad thing for Iraq. And if Americans learn that they do not really have all the answers, then at least one positive element may yet emerge from the mess in Iraq.