Watching BBC's Hardtalk the other day, I was pleasantly entertained when Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an arch advocate for the war on Iraq, was anxious to distance himself from the neo-cons around the Bush administration. Even more bizarre was his ludicrous effort to deny any knowledge of neo-conservatism.

Kagan, of course, is only the latest name in the long list of the so-called war strategists to be trapped in an uphill battle to rebuild credibility. But unlike Richard Perle and Francis Fukuyama, the two self-styled neo-cons who ate humble pie by admitting the war on Iraq in 2003 was a failure and a mistake, Kagan insists the military adventure was necessary to effect a regime change in Iraq, although he concedes President Bush's handling of the aftermath has been messy. His sheer frankness in acknowledging that promoting democracy was not among the top agenda when the war machine was activated deserves respect.

In any case, that Iraq will continue to haunt Bush and the neo-cons long after they are gone is beyond dispute. The poll drubbing of the Republicans in the US midterms elections has now claimed its heaviest casualty with the departure of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, a key architect of the Iraq War. The Democrats' stunning success in capturing both the House of Representatives and the Senate is a clear sign of voters' dissatisfaction with Bush and his consorts over Iraq, the guilty verdict handed down on Saddam Hussein last Sunday notwithstanding.

Too late now

It may be too late now to salvage Bush's reputation. Here is the president who was hailed by many as "appearing wiser, more mature and confident" after his State of the Union Address in January this year. Fast forward to the end of the year, 75% of the Brits polled by the Guardian have found him dangerous 6% more than Kim Jong Il, his one-time allies and advisors have walked out on him in quick succession, and the US voters have concurred by handing Congress over to the Democrats.

There are even Americans who think voting in Bush twice as among the most silliest of things that happened to the US. (I would however urge my fellow Malaysians to wipe the grins off their faces on hearing this: how many times have we voted in and emboldened the power-hungry Barisan Nasional by the way?)

Little wonder that even the most ardent war apologists now remain silent. Some are more eager than the opponents of the war to tar those in the White House as neo-cons. Life can be hilarious indeed.

Kagan, for all his defiance, did inform Stephen Sackur, the Hardtalk host, that President Bush had failed to pay attention to the subtlety of Chinese diplomacy over the last few years. With two years to go before he exits in (dis)grace, it is uncertain if Bush will be able to realign his foreign policy in response to the diplomatic charm offensive of the Chinese government.

Take North Korea for example. When Bush and the neo-cons were drumming up the war sentiment over Iraq in frenzy, accusing Saddam of possessing weapons of mass destruction, it was Pyongyang and Tehran that were quietly preparing for the eventuality of being forced into the corner by Washington.

When the Bush administration began to play the same old trick by using Iran as a nuclear bogeyman two years ago, Kim Jong Il was again steadfastly shoring up an "impressive" base to deal with the Americans, culminating in the recent nuclear test.

Unilateralistic approach

Who was to blame? The belligerent North Koreans? Perhaps. But let's not forget Bill Clinton signed the Agreed Framework with Pyongyang in 1994, under which North Korea would halt its uranium enrichment process in exchange for desperately needed material assistance. Upping the ante, Bush tore up the Agreed Framework without putting in place an alternative mechanism, which played into Kim's hand and effectively closed off the diplomatic channel between the two countries.

The unilateralistic approach of the Bush administration may work in the short term, but it will most probably result in greater resentment and resistance in the long run, as Kim has clearly shown the world. This is especially so when the US government shifts its goal posts so very often. It now seems that Tehran has come off the radar screen following Pyongyang's audacity.

At this critical juncture, Beijing stepped into the fray by sending its envoy, former foreign minister Tang Jiaxuan, in an attempt to resolve the political firestorm. Tang reportedly told Kim nuclear weapons were not a determinant in a country's rise and fall, and he alluded to the now defunct Soviet Union, which bankrupted the empire in its relentless pursuit of military might. Beijing's diplomatic endeavour has been fruitful, as Pyongyang agrees to return to the six-party talk, widely seen as the right and proper avenue to resolve the crisis.

Moreover, China has just won the goodwill of the entire Southeast Asia through the recent Asean-China Commemorative Summit, marking 15 years of dialogue relations. By rolling out the red carpet, it has also impressed the African leaders indiscriminately with loans and infrastructural investment benefiting Thabo Mbeki of South Africa as well as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

Increasingly, Beijing exhibits no qualms in patting the backs of a host of dictators from Asia to Africa, and many in Washington can only watch with a jaundiced eye China's new-found diplomatic clout.

The US' reputation worldwide is now at its lowest. Colin Powell, former secretary of state, admitted this in his recent remarks that the world was beginning to doubt the US' moral basis for the war against terror. That the erstwhile staunch supporters are ditching Bush one after another is anything but exhilarating. The president and the neo-cons must learn from the painful lesson of the reckless action backed by the self-important advisors and propagandists who have probably been too clever by half.