For the last two and half years we have been told that the British army was doing well in Basra. The British befriended the locals. They were subtle and less aggressive than the American forces. The British army was more skilled at winning 'hearts and minds' .

There is still still a lot of truth to that. But when a mob mercilessly attacks British soldiers, it is obvious even to the most wishful-thinking patriot that a good number of hearts and minds in Iraq have finally become bitterly angry against our forces and probably our country, too. The incident has brought out further telling bits of information. For instance, in some police stations in areas controlled by the British are prominently displayed pictures of leaders of local militias. So the hearts and minds even of large sections of the police force are not with us.

The occupation in the American-controlled parts of the country is going terribly. Over 150 people were killed in a single day in Bagdad last week in suicide bombings. British intelligence reports that Al-Quaeda, the terrorist organisation which planned the assault on the twin towers in New York and is headed by Osama bin Laden, is gaining influence. Instead of relying on suicide bombers from other countries like Syria, Al-Quaeda is increasingly able to recruit home-grown Iraqi suicide bombers.

Religious hatred and violence is increasing between the Shiite majority and the Sunni minority. And it is not such an uneven fight since the Sunnis were accustomed to being top-dogs under Saddam Hussein and are better organised.

The overall situation is getting worse, not better. By being there, the Americans and the British are allowing the most extreme, violent people to turn themselves into armies while those whom we would prefer to govern are bound to tend to rely on our armed forces to do their fighting for them. When we leave - and of course we will leave, sooner or later - the people we like best will be weaker. Those we like least will be stronger.

Of course there are dangers in going. Our departure may well be followed by civil war. But civil war is developing whatever we do. The longer we leave it, the more bitter and persistent it may be.

There is a danger, too, that some new strong man will emerge - another Saddam Hussein and no better disposed towards Britain and America. Well, what else did we expect? What did the war-planners think? Did they really imagine that we could take a country like Iraq and suddenly turn it into a modern, western democracy by sending over some 'advisers'.

There is an even bigger danger: that other countries will involve themselves in a coming civil war. Iraq will be sorely tempted. Syria has plenty of people there already. Saudi Arabia will feel its vital interests are involved. Turkey will want to prevent - by force if necessary - the creation of a Kurdish state on its border. This is potentially the scene of a unpredictable, multi-faceted conflict. But, I repeat, we will leave sooner or later anyway. And the later we go, the more demoralised we will be and the more incapable of having any calming influence at all.

Tony Blair has a personal reason for not getting us out. It would mean admitting he has mismanged the whole thing. But that is what most people think anyway. It is becoming increasingly clear that Mr Blair put us in greater danger by taking us into a war which has earned us the hatred of many Muslims both in the Middle East and here at home.

It would compound Mr Blair's fault if he continues this misbegotten war to save his pride. It would be appalling if British soldiers in Iraq and civilians at home continue dying because one man refuses to admit he was wrong.

When we went into this war, I hoped that Mr Blair and President Bush knew something that we didn't. On the evidence they gave publicly, the war was not justified yet I thought people in a such positions would not take the risks of this war without definite knowledge that our country was under great and imminent danger. I gave them too much credit for honour and I assumed they knew at least something of hisotry - of how occupying forces always end up being hated.

Now we should get out as fast as we can. True, Iraq might break up into separate states. That might even be desirable since it would give different national and religious groups their own spaces. We should try to bring together the states of the middle east to agree not to send in their own armies but, instead, contribute to the creation of lasting settlement.

This situation has the potential to poison Muslim/Christian relations for a generation with terrible consequences. We are in an awful hole and should follow the traditional advice: to stop digging.

(This is the unedited version of an article that appeared in yesterday's Daily Express.)