George W Bush cannot be accused of being ignorant of one of the fundamental principles of politics: that politics is perception. The president had just spent US$ 60 million attacking his rival John Kerry by painting him an image of being soft on national security and bent on rising taxes, before Kerry had a chance to imprint his image on the American public. Another important maxim, one that is not necessarily related to politics, applies here: first impression counts.

The latest scandal of abuse of Iraqi's army by the American military is creating a perception that does not augur well for Bush. The images of the tortured soldiers were aired in television screens and the Internet, and carried by newspapers across the world, creating a perception of an American administration that has lost control over what is happening in Iraq, at the very least; or worse, another Western effort in establishing its hold over the Arab and Muslim population.

Martha Frederick, wife of one of the soldiers accused of being responsible for the abuse, claimed that her husband was merely obeying orders. Who actually, in the chain of command, perpetrated the ghastly incidents is still a question; but what is certain is that the hodgepodge that is post-war Iraq made possible for such an incident to take place.

Bush and the hawks at Washington were all excited at the prospect of going to war in Iraq and replacing Saddam - but they thought little of what will come after that. Now Iraq, while planned to be handed over to the Governing Council, is administered by the invading coalition which is assisted by private contractors to compensate for the lack of personnel on the coalition's side. In essence: Bush's short-sightedness was responsible for this outrage, or that's at least is the perception created by the photos.

Bush can find scapegoats, or indeed the real people behind the incident - whether it be the soldiers who were immediately party to it; the private contractors (which were after all, appointed by the coalition) or even Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - yet that is not what matters. The perception is that as the last man in the chain of command, the buck will only stop when it reaches Bush himself.

Domestic and international levels

The problem arises at two levels: domestic and international.

In the domestic front, after September 11, America's media has been largely uncritical, and that has been crucial for his support - but signs are out that in an increasingly polarised America, their willingness to trust the American president is running thin. The media has always liked winners when they see one the opinion was that after September 11, Bush's uncompromising rhetoric would lead the way. At any significant signs of public displeasure, it would not be surprising the media would leave Bush in droves. The neo-conservatives have largely neutralised the media's so-called "liberal bias", but with this climate of public displeasure and impatience, it might emerge strong again - though it is still far from certain.

A small girl running naked from being napalmed in the jungles of Southeast Asia and scores of prisoners of war (some who might be part of the previous authoritarian regime) being abused like dogs and sexually assaulted in a Middle Eastern prison may share few things in common, but one applying to both is the public's perception.

When Kim Thuc's photo reached the public, it became a major factor in a change of the public's attitude towards the Vietnam war - and until now the Bush administration has resisted any effort of equating the war in Iraq with the Vietnamese debacle three decades ago. Now it has less justification to do so - Colin Powell, the secretary of state seen as being removed from the rest of the hawks at Washington, had gone so far as to equate this tragedy with the American torture of detainees taking place at My Lai prison, Vietnam, during the Vietnam war.

On the international level, the fact that Abu Ghraib prison featured prominently this time could not be more ironic - the prison which the Saddam regime was notorious for torture and execution is now demonised thanks to the very forces whose only justification for removing him - previously being the discredited weapons of mass destruction argument - has been attributed to democratising Iraq and providing a better life for Iraqis.

One of the likely consequences of this incident is that any remaining good will, little as it may have been, among the Muslims and Arabs, would be lost, for a long time indeed. This in turn will marginalise the advocates of the much-needed democracy in the Middle East - and prolonging the "us against them" attitude, perpetuated by extremists, but first made popular by Bush himself. Any hope for a dtente between the West and Islam in the near future has certainly disappeared.

Bush tried to repair the damage somewhat by allowing himself to be interviewed by Arab television. But as his public relations advisors would remind him - it's too late: his apologies was drowned by the first impression. This might be the perception that Bush tried to create by attacking Kerry after all - that the president is certainly not "soft" when it comes to security!

NIK NAZMI NIK AHMAD is based in London, contributes to Asia Times Online and the BBC World Service, amongst others. His website is at www.niknazmi.com.