Friends who aren’t journalists can’t understand why I’m so eager to get back to Baghdad.

They’re thinking about roadside bullets and bombs, while I’m glad I’ll have the chance to compare impressions of Baghdad with my last trip, three months ago. Some Iraqi-American friends are returning to Baghdad, and I’ll get the chance to see their reactions to a Saddam-free homeland.

But the real reason I want to return now is that the next few months are crucial to Iraq’s future and I want to assess the likely outcome. This is the time period that will determine whether the United States can get Iraq on its feet and turn over power to Iraqis before the population sours on American rule.

As the U.S. viceroy in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, recently admitted to Congress: “The reality of foreign troops on the streets is starting to chafe. Some Iraqis are beginning to regard us as occupiers and not as liberators.” Presumably he was not referring to the Saddamist bitter-enders, but to Iraqis who opposed Saddam but wonder where their country is headed.

Bremer has put forward a seven-point program for Iraqis to draft a constitution and hold elections, but there is no definite time line. Secretary of State Colin Powell has suggested that a constitution could be ready in six months, but no one has suggested a date for elections.

Handing over power

Already there are tensions between Americans and Iraqi officials over how fast Bremer should hand over power.

Right now there exists an Iraqi Governing Council appointed by Bremer. At first the council was considered a puppet by many Iraqis, but it is gradually taking on a life of its own. Many of the 25 members want Bremer to devolve authority faster than he prefers.

I could see Iraqi impatience on view last weekend, when I attended a memorial ceremony in Arlington, Va., for Iraqi Shiite Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr al-Hakim, who was assassinated in August. His brother Abdul Azziz leads the most organized Shiite religious party in Iraq, known by its acronym SCIRI.

The tone of the meeting was one of impatience with U.S. intentions. Abdul Azziz’s emissary emphasized that the Americans must leave quickly. So did the black-turbaned emissary of Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the leading Iraqi Shiite cleric.

Several of the speakers insisted that the United States turn over at least symbolic sovereignty to Iraqis before they draft their constitution and hold elections. This would parallel the Afghan political process. In the Afghan case, with the United Nations in charge and the United States the 800-pound gorilla in the background, Hamid Karzai was designated as Afghanistan’s leader in 2001 even though a constitution has just been drafted and elections won’t be held until 2004.

These Iraqi Governing Council members want a similar kind of symbolic sovereignty, even though they know America would still provide security and hold the purse strings for the foreseeable future. They believe that such sovereignty would ease the sting of occupation among Iraqis who hated Saddam but resent foreign rulers. They think it would buy them more time — for drafting a constitution and scheduling elections — and would make it easier to win U.N. and foreign assistance.

Elections come first

So far the Bush administration has adamantly rejected the idea of turning over sovereignty before elections. This sets up the drama of the coming months.

It isn’t clear whether a U.S.-controlled process — with no U.N. political umbrella and no prior transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis — will have legitimacy.

In the near term, there are several big issues that, depending on how they unfold, will indicate whether the United States can succeed.

One. Will Iraq’s Shiite religious establishment accept the constitutional process? Shiites make up 60 percent of Iraq’s population, and even many who don’t want an Islamic state look to religious leaders for guidance.

Ayatollah Sistani has called for delegates to a constitutional conference to be elected. Presumably he wants Shiites to have more influence and to make sure the document doesn’t contravene Islamic legal precepts. This is no doubt a key reason that U.S. officials — and some Iraqis — oppose an election for delegates.

But American success depends on the Shiite establishment not turning against us. So long as guerrilla opposition comes mainly from the Sunni Arab heartland, which includes only about 15 percent of the population, the guerrilla struggle is tolerable (though U.S. casualties will continue). If the Shiites also turn against U.S. troops, all bets are off.

Drafting a constitution

Two. Can Iraqis themselves agree on what form the constitution will take? Beside the relationship of mosque and state, the other big issue is federalism. Having suffered under a strong centralized state under Saddam, many Iraqis want a more decentralized country. But it is an explosive issue.

The Kurds want one big federal state of their own, containing a key oil region, which raises fears they might someday secede. The Shiites prefer several states where they could control southern oil and perhaps impose sharia law. The Sunnis in the central heartland fear being squeezed out of power and out of oil. And the American occupiers prefer 18 states that would not follow ethnic lines. It isn’t clear how these differences can be reconciled.

Three. Can the Bush administration get the results it wants from the political process? By keeping a hold over political events in Iraq — without much of a role for the United Nations and without any early transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis — U.S. officials may hope to ensure that a new Iraqi government is both secular and decentralized. I doubt that the United States can so neatly control the outcome.

The prospects of a timely U.S. exit from Iraq depend on this political process advancing smoothly in the coming months. Bremer can buy more time if he spreads aid money around or if Saddam is found. But unless the political process gets traction soon, the United States will get bogged down in a lengthy occupation.

I want to see for myself how the situation looks on the ground and to hear from Iraqis. On to Baghdad.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Her e-mail address is trubin@phillynews.com.