The truly troubling thing about George W. Bush's current campaign to put a happy face on the U.S. occupation in Iraq is the sense that the president might actually believe what he is saying.

Bush has been accused of lying about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and the real intentions for the invasion and occupation of that sad and troubled Middle Eastern land. But, in his recent speeches, the president has not seemed so much to be lying as he has seemed to be out of touch with reality.

The president wants Americans to believe that the so-called "transfer of power" in Iraq, which is scheduled for June 30, will be something more than a symbolic gesture. But the case he makes for this concept is close to comic.

Bush says that, as of June 30, Iraqis will be in charge of their destiny. Yet it remains clear that no Iraqi will take a leadership role in that country's new government without the approval of the American occupation forces. It also remains clear that whatever "government" takes charge on June 30 will be forced to act as the occupation forces demand.

For all of the president's desperate attempts to suggest that the occupation is about to end, the fact is that the United States will retain effective control of every important aspect of Iraqi political and economic life after June 30. U.S. troops will remain the dominant military force on the ground, U.S. corporations such as Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton will remain the dominant reconstruction force, and Iraq's substantial oil resources will remain under the guidance and control of U.S. interests.

Even America's closest allies, the British, have quietly expressed concern that the president's words do not appear to be connected to deeds. A memorandum leaked from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office last week voiced misgivings regarding American behavior in Iraq and explained that the British prefer that the interim government should have "an effective veto over major (military) operations." That memorandum said, "We still need to tie the U.S. down to language that reflects these principles."

Under pressure from the British press, Prime Minister Tony Blair suggested that the United States and Britain were still, essentially, on the same page with regard to Iraq. But the strain was clear, and already the Russians, Chinese, French and Germans were demanding that, before the U.N. Security Council approves the coalition handover of power to an interim government in Iraq, there must be an agreement that the new government should have real authority over security matters within Iraq.

As in the weeks before the Iraq invasion, the rest of the world is expressing appropriate concern about the unrealistic and unwise calculations of an American president who often does not seem to understand the realities on the ground in the Middle East.

Americans should in the coming month make it clear to their political representatives that June 30 should mark the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, not the beginning of a new chapter in that occupation. For that to happen, the Bush administration must agree to a formula that will put Iraqis in charge of decisions about military operations in their country, corporations allowed to participate in the reconstruction of their country, and the production and sale of their oil.

Until that happens, Bush's pronouncements about putting Iraqis in charge will remain empty promises. And the crisis that has so damaged America's international reputation, and Bush's own presidency, will continue. It is time to give Iraq back to the Iraqis. It is time to end the occupation. It is time for the United States to figure out how to get our troops home from this misguided mission.

© Coyright 2004 Capital Newspapers

###