Barbara Ferguson, Arab News Correspondent

WASHINGTON, 30 December 2003 — The Bush administration has decided to reduce its ambitious initiatives to transform Iraq’s economy, political system and security forces — due to the decision to shorten the timetable for US civil occupation, increasing American losses there and the focus on approaching US November presidential elections.

Initial demands that Iraqis write a constitution before a transfer of sovereignty from the US occupation forces to a provisional government have been dropped, as well as plans to privatize state-owned businesses.

Paul Bremer, the US administrator of Iraq, “has refocused US aims on the ground there to forge compromises with Iraqi leaders and combat a persistent insurgency in order to meet a July 1 deadline to transfer sovereignty” to an provisional Iraqi government, reported the Washington Post.

Significantly, US troops in Iraq will remain on the ground for a longer period of time, say US military officials.

This decision has caused some head-scratching with regional experts here, who say it is inconsistent with the fundamental mission of the Bush administration.

“The Bush administration’s plans were to restructure the economy and change the power position in Iraq, so the US would essentially control Iraq,” said Edward Herman, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania and author of “The Real Terror Network.” “If this (new) program was followed through fully, the US could very well lose control almost immediately.”

“The beautiful contradiction is that if the troops stay as a police force; they’re going to be part of the defacto government. It’s going to be hard to imagine that any real sovereignty will exist because they’ll continue to be an occupied country, as the military force will be left behind to achieve US objectives,” said Herman.

Director of Defense Policy Studies at the CATO Institute, Charles Pena, agrees that keeping US military forces in Iraq muddies stated goals.

“Bremer has realized that the most we can do is hand the government over to the Iraqis and let them control their own destiny. We cannot force them to walk down the path to an American-style democracy.”

Pena said the US is finally “doing the right thing, but only half way.”

And this decision would mean increased risks for US troops there. “If we hand the government over to the Iraqi people, our troops will continue to be a target for anyone in Iraq who is disgruntled and dissatisfied for having a military force there or the way a new government is taking place. We become a convenient target and scapegoat.”

Pena maintains the war in Iraq, “is the wrong war.”

“First, we went in because of weapons of mass destruction, which haven’t been found. Then were allegations of Saddam Hussein being in bed with Al-Qaeda, and there’s no proof of that. At the 11th hour, before we went to war with Iraq, the president talked about democracy, with the idea that democracy will spread to all the countries in the area. Iraq was the wrong war, especially as it has nothing to do with dismantling the Al-Qaeda network.”

Pena said the proof is that despite the capture of Saddam Hussein, the US not a safer place. “We are now on an increased threat level of attacks against the US — which is a real indicator that there is a tremendous disconnect between the war against Iraq and the terrorist threat and the terrorists who attacked on 9/11.”