Problems of translation are a hazard of international diplomacy. Only last month, the Indonesian President was quoted as criticising travel warnings issued by the Australian Government. The misstatement was promptly attributed to an inexperienced interpreter.

Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, has taken a similar route in the past 48 hours. In an interview with Der Spiegel, he appeared to endorse Senator Barack Obama's plan for a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq within 16 months. According to an Iraqi government spokesman, however, Mr al-Maliki's words were misunderstood and mistranslated. But however translated, the comments from Baghdad not only put a vague end in sight for combat forces; they also mark a significant shift in the politcs of the war

Regardless of the exact content and nuance of what Mr al-Maliki said, two aspects of this episode stand out. First, his comment is helpful to Mr Obama. Most American voters believe that the decision to intervene in Iraq was wrong, but this does not necessarily redound to Mr Obama's electoral advantage. John McCain's greater experience in foreign affairs is a strong suit when US forces are engaged in war on two fronts.

Secondly, the political repercussions of Mr al- Maliki's statement indicate Iraq's altered status in Western political debate. In the US presidential election of 2004, Iraq was a crucial electoral issue. It still is; but the Iraqis themselves are now an important voice in that debate.

The mere suggestion that the Government in Baghdad is sympathetic to Mr Obama's plans goes some way to neutralising the principal charges against the Democratic nominee in foreign affairs: that he is inexperienced; that his plans for troop withdrawal are precipitate; and that his policy is designed with an eye to party activists more than to America's allies.

But the new importance of Iraq's constitutional authority is probably of more enduring significance for American statecraft. Two years ago, after the bombing of the Golden Dome mosque in Samarra, Iraq was in a state of incipient civil war. Eighteen months ago, the Iraq Study Group, under James Baker and Lee Hamilton, concluded that the situation in Iraq was “grave and deteriorating”, and urged that the US Administration engage Iran and Syria in attempts to forestall chaos.

President Bush adopted a different course. With a surge in troop levels, the US-led coalition at last alighted on a counter-insurgency strategy that has worked. Iraq is far from being a fully fledged democracy, but the forces of jihadism have suffered serious reversal. With greater security comes the opportunity for political advance in Iraq and the region.

A decision on when coalition forces finally withdraw is a matter for Iraq's sovereign Government. But it is vital that America's allies in Iraq prevail, and be seen to prevail, over the forces that have inflicted such damage on that tortured nation. Declaring a timetable in advance is fraught with its own dangers. It would signal to insurgents that they need hold out only a little longer and be in a position once more to wreak havoc. America's mission will be accomplished when Iraqis are ready to assume full responsibility for security. The increasing weight of Iraq's Government in this saga is a blazon of progress.