On Tuesday Bush hinted that US troops would remain in Iraq at least until January 2009, when his presidency ends. The decision whether to maintain a substantial US military presence in the strife-torn country would then be made by future Iraqi governments and his successors.

Such a suggestion should by no means be interpreted as Bush's concession of the possibility that the US could be forced to withdraw before accomplishing its mission, but it clearly reflects Bush's own assessment that the war will probably outlast his tenure in office.

Whether the struggle waged by US forces, its shrinking allies and, increasingly in recent months, fledgling US-trained Iraqi forces can succeed remains a big question mark, the answer to which will ultimately be decided by an American public fast losing confidence in Bush's case for war.

Since it began in March 2003, the war has claimed more than 2,300 US soldiers killed and thousands more wounded. Toppling Saddam was the easy part. The US-led coalition has since become bogged down in a war of attrition with formidable Sunni insurgents, who know how to inflict maximum damage on US resolve, both on the battlefield and over the air waves.

There is no doubt that the insurgents have gained the upper hand in the international news media. Bad news, particularly of the unbroken string of violence perpetrated by Sunni guerrillas against the US-led forces, ragtag Iraqi army and Shi'ite civilians, has swamped American television screens. The setbacks to Bush's handling of Iraq took an ominous turn with the blowing up of the Askariya Shrine, one of the holiest Shi'ite sites.

Provocative acts like that one reflect poorly on the ability of coalition forces and the Iraqi army to keep peace, and the possibility of Iraq descending into civil war has moved closer to reality. The latest negative developments have plunged Bush's poll ratings to a new low. Even some Republican lawmakers are now worried that Bush's unpopularity may jeopardise their prospects of retaining control of both houses of Congress in November's mid-term elections.

Nevertheless, few doubt Bush's resolve to see the mission through. Bush already knows his presidency will be judged almost entirely on the outcome of this venture to establish democracy in the Muslim Middle East as part of the global war against terrorism.

All things considered, the concept of such an ambitious undertaking remains fundamentally sound. Despite all of the collateral damage in terms of combatant and civilian lives lost, a resolute US and its allies capable of sticking to the mission and completing the task they set out to do is preferable to a coalition that pulls out in disarray. The helpless Iraqis who would be left behind would be pushed into anarchy and bloodshed.

Iraqis who suffered under Saddam's brutal regime deserve a better future, regardless of the cynical debate raging in some international quarters about whether his overthrow was justified after all, all the while doing little or nothing themselves to help.

For all of their shortcomings, blunders and even dubious motives, the US and its dwindling allies now have a moral obligation to live up to their lofty promises and noble aspirations, see their mission through and not deliver Iraqis to yet another new set of bloodthirsty warlords.