As a historical comparison, it might not be precisely correct to see as congruent John McCain's declared possibility of a 100-year United States presence in Iraq to the so-called Hundred Years' War in medieval Europe. The latter was, substantially, a dynastic rivalry between the rulers of England and France.

The image is, nonetheless, compelling - this idea of America slogging on in Iraq for a century, attempting to pacify Shiite, Sunni and Kurds, seeking to cobble together a functioning government and ensuring political stability. In some ways, the Hundred Years' War - which really lasted 116 years (1337-1453) - reshaped Europe. It helped resolve some petty political issues on the continent, weakened the feudal system, spawned new strategies for war and ended with the ousting of the Plantagenets from France and therewith, the early Franco-English monarchical relationship.

Five years on, there is no clear sign of how America's war in Iraq might end, or what the United States will have achieved if, indeed, McCain wins the presidency in November and the United States military is still in Baghdad in 2108. The certitude of shock and awe of 2003 has given way to anxieties and divisions in America, as well as questions about the moral authority of the United States around the world.

Of course, President Bush, marking the fifth anniversary of the start of the war, appeared to have no doubt about the rightness of the Iraq adventure, although the declared reason for the invasion has shifted and morphed since the first bombs landed on Baghdad. "Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right thing, and this is a fight that America can, and must win," he said. Unfortunately for Bush, most people around the world are not listening and two thirds of Americans do not believe that this is a war their country should be in.

In the wake of 9/11, Bush occupied the moral high ground. People felt that it was their right to go after Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Opportunistically, Washington sought to test the neo-con ideology of the projection of power and its tactics of pre-emption and regime change. Saddam Hussein presumably had weapons of mass destruction that could strike London in 45 minutes.

But the premise for the war has unravelled and the United States has been left with a new-type asymmetric war, defined by the suicide bomber, who has migrated to Kabul.

The 'surge', which has kept 160,000 American troops in Iraq, may have tamped down on the violence, but the toll is still enormously high. Four thousand have died, nearly 30,000 have been injured. The war, it is estimated, will cost the Americans US$3 trillion.

On the other side of the equation, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, millions are displaced, and real reconciliation is a long way off. The country is far more broken and dysfunctional than before the war.

At the same time, America's arch enemy, Shiite Iran, has grown in influence both inside Iraq, with its Shiite majority, and in the region. America's prestige is dented and it is debatable that the country has been made safer.

While the concentration has been on Iraq, bin Laden is apparently alive and there are serious doubts that this is a war that can be won.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.