WITH the electoral results of the recent mid-term elections in the United States — which saw the Republican party lose control of both the House of Representatives and Senate — one could say that the other political shoe has finally dropped for the two political leaders that led their countries into war in Iraq.Of course, the first political leader to pay a price was British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose political unpopularity became increasingly intense as the British people grew even more disillusioned with their country's role in backing the Americans in their policy in Iraq.

Not that British support was all that high from the beginning, no matter what the British political leadership did in terms of backing the policies of the Blair government in its unstinting support of President Bush's administration and its war on terrorism.

But what became increasingly unsettling for the British people and their political leadership as a whole was the perception that Mr. Blair was being led by the nose by the Americans in backing their foreign policies — especially in regard to Iraq and in certain aspects Afghanistan.

There were increasingly loud complaints coming from many quarters in Britain that the country lacked an independent foreign policy when it comes to international affairs.

Britain had, in fact, lost that independent role as a leading nation in world affairs when it was forced to back down in its attempt to seize the Suez Canal 50 years ago after Egypt's Gamal Nasser nationalised the important water way. Ironically, they were forced to withdraw by none other than the Americans.

Since then, Britain has displayed an independent course of action of sorts in the conflict in Northern Ireland when it sent troops there in 1968 in the wake of an Irish Catholic uprising and the activities of the Irish Republic Army. It took the same independent line to reverse the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. But neither of these events was on a scale which would have world-wide implications.MR. Blair was at the height of his political popularity when he finally led the Labour Party to electoral victory in 1997 after years in the political wilderness. That euphoria was maintained when he repeated that success on two further occasions. But that popularity took a downturn, as I have stated, in the wake of his support of President Bush's foreign policies. This has led to a call from within his own Labour Party for him to step down as Prime Minister and to give a date when this will come into effect. He has now given such an undertaking, but it is not hard to envision that, had Britain not become so heavily involved in Iraq, we might have seen Blair leading the Labour Party into a fourth election.

In America, the political ramifications for President Bush have taken a little longer to manifest themselves.

For a long time Bush was able to link American military intervention in Iraq to his war on terrorism and its perceived threat to Americans.

But, despite some initial successes in Iraq, a process of disillusion has begun to take hold of the American people. The election of a supposedly popular Iraqi government has not brought stability as first thought.

Instead it has only widened the divide between various religious and ethnic groups. A growing insurgency has led to an increase in violence, leaving not only thousands of Iraqi civilians dead but a rising toll of American servicemen that could reach beyond 3,000 before the end of the year. The image of President Bush touching down on a US aircraft carrier before prematurely declaring victory after Saddam Hussein was ousted and now facing a death sentence — made just months after the invasion of Iraq — now seems a distant memory.

In fact, the price has risen in terms of lost American lives to such a degree — last month alone more than 100 US soldiers were killed — that, in many Americans' minds, the dream of liberating Iraq has turned into a repeat of their nightmare involvement in Vietnam.

American foreign policy is driven by the influence of what is dubbed the neo-cons — a conservative viewpoint of the world which views the struggle over Iraq as part of the American attempt to create democratic regimes not only in Iraq but throughout the middle East — and thereby amenable to American and western influence and interests.

Iraq was supposed to be the first test but things have not turned out as expected. Now America finds itself stuck in a quagmire which the American people have grown increasingly tired of, despite Bush's insistence that America must fight on to win.EVEN up to the eve of the mid-term elections the US leader was still talking in terms of winning a victory in Iraq, despite what the polls were telling him. And that is the dilemma the President now faces. He has to bring about a US withdrawal sooner rather than later, not because he believes in one, but because it has been forced upon him.

In the aftermath of the mid-term elections we will increasingly hear about a lame-duck president whose legacy is likely to be the mess Iraq now finds itself in.

The American people have spoken and it is clear that American involvement in Iraq will end sooner than later — in fact, this could be a reality before President Bush leaves office.

The conflict in Iraq will have a profound impact on how the administrations of George Bush and Tony Blair will be viewed in history. But having started the conflict, it appears neither man will be around to bring the sorry mess to a satisfactory conclusion.