Iraq may turn out to be America’s “good war” while Afghanistan goes “bad”, the Bush Administration official responsible for co-ordinating efforts in Baghdad has told The Times.

For years Iraq appeared to be a country spiralling deeper into violence and anarchy with no end in sight to the war, while Afghanistan boasted a popular president, a stable capital city and an insurgency that was no match for US and Nato forces.

According to David Satterfield, America's Co-ordinator for Iraq, the roles may have now been reversed, with violence dropping markedly in Iraq, the economy improving and the first signs of real political progress between rival sectarian and ethnic groups.

By contrast, violence in Afghanistan is growing, divisions are deepening between key Nato allies with forces on the ground and the Taleban is becoming bolder and more deadly with support from militants across the border in Pakistan.

Mr Satterfield, a career diplomat who served in some of the toughest US missions, such as Beirut in the 1980s, said that today more Iraqi citizens in more areas of Iraq were more secure that at any time since the US invasion in 2003.

"The lowered violence by any metric used, violence against civilians, violence against Iraqi forces, violence against US and Coalition forces . . . the levels are down, they have gone down steadily since January last year," he said.

The situation was not static, he said, but improving steadily. In contrast he said that indications showed Afghanistan heading in the opposite direction.

“I think that in many ways Iraq may be seen to be the good war, the success story with all reservations and cautions that are appropriate. And Afghanistan the much more threatening, bad picture," said Mr Satterfield.

Afghanistan's problems went beyond differences within the ranks of Nato, where countries such as Germany have refused to let their troops take on combat roles, and the lawlessness across the border in Pakistan's tribal areas, where al-Qaeda and other militants are openly helping the Taleban.

"It is the nature of Afghanistan. Afghanistan has many deficits not present in Iraq. Iraq is a wealthy country, it has resources, badly used, but it has resources," he said. It is rich. Iraq, for all its difficulty in unifying politically, has many quasi-democratic, recognisable political forces. Afghanistan has warlords," he said.

In spite of his upbeat message about Iraq, he gave warning that the achievements of the US military "surge", ordered by President Bush, in blunting the insurgency and al-Qaeda's operations were "fragile".

"The security gains achieved, as dramatic as they are, are not irreversible," he said. "They can only be made irrersible, only solidified by an active process of political reconciliation. This is the judgment of our military commanders and our judgment."

He predicted that the country would require assistance from US forces for some time and said that British forces in the south were still needed to play a vital role.

Mr Satterfield added that stability in the country was being threatened by outside forces such as Iran, which continued to send weapons to militias in Iraq; Syria, which allowed foreign fighters to cross the border into Iraq; and the Kurdish rebel group the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), whose guerrilla bases in northern Iraq have been hit repeatedly by the Turkish military.

Times Recommends

• Both sides blame US for worsening relations
• Stieg Larsson: losing the plot over his cash
• Odd creature paralysed by incompatible parts