President George W. Bush seems to be the only one who is convinced that the war in Iraq is being won. He recently said so.

For many, however, Iraq is already a lost war. According to the most recent CBS poll, 56 percent of the American people think Iraq should never have been invaded. Hence the increasing number of people who criticize the president for living in _ as the Bob Woodward book title puts it _ a "state of denial."

Despite the terrible conclusions drawn by the Iraq Study Group that the situation in that country is "grave and deteriorating," Bush insists on putting a sunny face on the failure, and the most he's willing to concede is that he is disappointed at the slow pace of success in Iraq.

Bush continues to be the only person who uses the words "success" and "Iraq" in the same sentence.

When new Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked directly (during his confirmation hearings) whether the Iraq war was being won, he responded: "No, Sir." It is hard to understand, therefore, how Bush and Gates are ever going to agree.

The terrible reality in Iraq is this: Almost 3,000 American troops and countless thousands of Iraqi civilians have died; the country is struggling with the prospect of an imminent civil war among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds; the central government, with the backing of the United States, has lost control of the torn nation; the 140,000 American forces have not been able to defeat a growing insurgency; and all the terrorist groups in the region have made Iraq their battleground. The war is being lost.

And the main problem is this war began on the wrong foot; it began in the wrong country.

It was Osama bin Laden, and not Saddam Hussein, who was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Even today, Bush administration officials have trouble explaining why America attacked Iraq instead of focusing on the capture of bin Laden.

Three and a half years after the invasion of Iraq, the American presence there has yet to be justified. But the problem now is that if the United States withdraws quickly and hurriedly, "a regional conflagration" is likely to erupt all over the Middle East (as the Iraq Study Group warned).

The United States can pull out, but it has to do so carefully. Bush, however, has already rejected the two main recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Bush does not want to commit himself to begin a troop withdrawal by 2008, nor does he want to initiate a dialogue with Syria and Iran, his enemies.

Talking with friends isn't of any use; it's with enemies that peace is made.

If Bush had defined the capture of Hussein as victory, he could already have been out of Iraq. But he contrived to make Iraq the battleground for the fight against terrorism, and now he up to his knees in mud.

Iraq, like Vietnam, already seems a lost war.

The most America can expect in Iraq right now is to leave a government in place that, more or less, avoids genocide. But how does one ensure that a country remains united, a country that in fact was made up of three different peoples?

For that, the United Nations needs to help and, whether they like it or not, Iraq's neighbors must give support.

We have to put aside any illusions of grandeur. Iraq's democratization was always a fanciful dream. It is impossible to expect people to line up to vote when they are killing each other in the streets for the mere fact of being born in the wrong neighborhood.

The realistic thing to do is admit that the war in Iraq was waged in the wrong place, with the wrong number of troops and pursuing the wrong enemy. But up to now, I've not heard anyone say: "I made a mistake.