In the beginning, the list of countries constituting the 'Coalition of the Willing' as it was so stomach-churningly called was impressive in length if not necessarily in constitution. Saddam must have been truly terrified at the thought of the combined armoured might of nations such as El Salvador, Eritrea, Nicaragua, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan converging on his country. It is now widely acknowledged that almost all the countries who openly supported the US in the beginning did so because they wanted US support in their own affairs. Eritrea and Ethiopia, for instance, were locked in a vicious border dispute in which American support could prove vital; Uzbekistan had cause to hope that the frequent and terrifying human rights violations that were taking place (not least opposition politicians being boiled alive) would be ignored - and they were duly rewarded when a British diplomat who exposed political brutality in that country was sacked and quickly silenced; and Nicaragua desperately needed US support in its ongoing drug wars. The Coalition, in other words, wasn't so much about morality as expediency: 'I'll help you blow up your insurgents if you help me blow up mine'.

One by one, realising the folly of their actions, the main players in the Coalition fell away. The first to go, perhaps unsurprisingly, was Nicaragua, who had an insurgency of its own to deal with. Then Spain - the most significant European country to support the United States after Britain - withdrew its troops following the change of government after the Madrid train bombings. It was swiftly followed by Portugal and the Netherlands. Japan, another big player, withdrew her troops in 2006 and has since withdrawn her navy from operations related to the war in Afghanistan. Denmark , the last major European country other than Britain still to be involved withdrew in August this year.

It's not all one-way traffic, though. One European country - Georgia - has announced that it will send more troops to Iraq, bolstering its contingent there to as many as 2,400. Georgia's gesture, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with President Saakashvili's desperate need for US support in his bid to stay in power in the face of anti-western, pro-Russian protests which have recently swept the country.

Now, Australia has become the latest country to join the roll call of nations who have cut and run from Iraq. Georgia's contribution may be enough to plug the gap left by the Aussies militarily: for all the neo-con guff that John Howard spouted in support of the Bush-Blair axis, he knew that the Australian people wouldn't stand for Australian soldiers coming back in body bags (as he found out recently, there was a lot else they wouldn't stand for either). As a result, the Aussie contingent in Iraq made sure it stayed well out of harm's way and left the mucky business of getting blown up to the British and Americans. Accordingly, their projected withdrawal is not a military blow so much as an ideological one. That is a loss which Georgia cannot hope to make up for.

Slowly, the geopolitical landscape has changed since the invasion in 2003. The (usually right wing) governments who had supported the invasion so vehemently in the hope of currying favour in Washington have gradually been toppled (apart from in Uzbekistan, where pro-democracy protestors have a nasty habit of 'disappearing').

Even though the security situation in Iraq has been improving of late, this still leaves the US and Britain in a sticky situation. Neither wants to get bogged down fighting an insurgency they can't defeat in a country they can't control. It is now a race to see who can get out first and leave the other one to it. At present, Britain is in the lead: with fewer troops, of course, it has a major head start over the US. Nevertheless, public opinion here believes that now we're there, we may as well do the job properly. The US has the considerable advantage that opinion there simply wants to bring the troops home regardless.

Waiting to see who gets out first makes for an intriguing if deadly spectator sport. There can be no debate, now, that the Iraq expedition was a disaster. The only possible benefit which could have been derived from it, so far as the West was concerned, should have been lower oil prices. But thanks to some obscene mismanagement combined with high government taxes, petrol costs more now than it ever has before.

Many commentators have compared Iraq with Vietnam. There is one vital difference, though: in Vietnam, somebody won. In Iraq, just as in all good tragedies, almost everybody's dead. And everybody who isn't dead is running for their lives.