--i'd agree with that, in fact i think it's definitely having an impact in that it has 1) made a Bush presidency much harder to be won on the WOT score, 2) definitely slowed up the march to Syria and Iran, 3) has kept the war issue alive in the United States, which the war party does not desire, and makes it possible for Iraqis to retrieve their sovereignty, something I can't imagine the US handing over without a fight, the wishful fantasies of the "well the US can do some good there too ya know" lobby aside...)
There is one unsettling thing however, it's entirely possible that the mess for the US in Iraq feeds the permanent war with no apparent boundaries or goals (Ellen Wood outlined this really well in her new book on imperialism)...in which case the mentality of permanent war is only reinforced...
I just listened to the lamentations of Peter Galbraith about the lack of planning for the invasion aftermath expressed at a speech in Cleveland recently. I find that whole line of thought really misses the point. In order for the US to do this occupation 'well', it would have to really invest huge amounts into the infrastructure (which it hasn't) for rebuilding and help the country build an economic foundation for future development (i.e. allow for a degree of protectionism...)...These run entirely counter to the ethos of global privatization, it would make no sense for the US to do that. Nor does it make much sense to argue for the US to do that. Sovereignty is the only basis for future Iraqi development and as long as the US is there that is out of the question.
in the meanwhile, yes the situation is bound to become ugly as the true nature of occupation reveals itself on a daily basis.
steve