IT is almost a year since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, symbolised by the pulling down of his statue in Baghdad.

The historic event demonstrated the ease with which the military objectives of the way in Iraq were achieved.

Subsequently, however, the political objectives have proved much more difficult to attain.

Fears that the Coalition Forces had a plan for war, but no plan for peace, appear well founded.

Progress at establishing civil rather than military authority in the country has been painfully slow.

US and British troops still have the appearance of forces of occupation, rather than forces of liberation.

The upsurge in violence and unrest in recent days and weeks suggests military withdrawal should be years rather than months away.

And yet President Bush, publicly at least, still stands by the June 30 deadline for the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis.

Such a timetable does not seem practical. Imposing a system of democracy on a country which has no experience of it is a daunting task at the best of times.

Riots, sniper attacks, suicide bombs and terrorist attacks do not represent the best of times.

To press ahead with the handover of power to the Iraqis within three months will be catastrophic. Instead there needs to be a gradual and structured transfer.

However, with the American public increasingly concerned about involvement in Iraq ahead of November's presidential election, George Bush is anxious leave the problems in Iraq behind him.

Domestic opinion polls, rather than events in Iraq, are determining the President's policy.

He may well calculate that leaving Iraq to its own devices represents his best chance of re-election, even if it leaves the Iraqi people of the brink of a bloody civil war.