Baghdad, Iraq ? Let the Iraqis go.

This is the message I send from this sprawling, low, dusty, dun-colored, decrepit Iraqi capital; where the 105-degree heat can knock you out, the electricity works half the time, and the shells of government buildings looted after occupation still stand in mute testimony to occupation mistakes.

The best thing the Bush administration can do is to let Iraq’s new “sovereign” government really be sovereign. Let Iraqis rule.

This caretaker body — cobbled together by U.S. envoy Paul Bremer, Iraqi officials he had appointed, and, to a lesser extent, by U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi — is already regarded by much of the world as an American puppet. Even so, Iraqis are showing more interest in it than many expected. If its members can persuade the Iraqi public that it has real power and can deliver some results, it could help hold the country together until the 2005 elections.

But the temptation for the Bush administration is to hold on to control. At the United Nations, the Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari is pleading for some say over how U.S. forces are used in his country. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s public remarks that Iraq should be given no veto over such actions were seen as a slap.

Back here in Baghdad, new Iraqi ministers wonder whether they will have real control over their oil money or whether the new U.S. embassy will still call the shots.

If U.S. officials humiliate the new Iraqi government at its birth, Iraqis will reject it. The climate will be poisoned for elections, and the country could tip toward a much wider insurgency.

There’s a reasonable chance, however, that Iraq can limp toward elections if the administration will risk ceding power. But there is no time to lose.

Iraqis have become wholly cynical about American intentions. The threat of random death from car bombs or thieves colors the public’s attitude towards the new government and the United States.

On Mutanabi Street, the historic strip of two- and three-story shops where book lovers gather on Friday mornings, the best-sellers are no longer books on Saddam’s crimes.

“People have had enough of these books,” says Allaudin Mohammed, manager of Dar al-Kittab al-Arabi book shop, “and one reason is the suffering of the people. So they are reading metaphysical books that try to foresee the future.”

The bestseller in his shop? The two-volume “History of the Absence,” about the missing 12th Shiite imam whose return is awaited by most Shiite Muslims. Mohammed sells 30 to 35 copies a day of these tomes. The author is the martyred Ayatollah Sadeq al-Sadr, father of the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose militia is fighting with American troops.

And for the first time, on this trip I am hearing middle-class Iraqis say the Americans should leave now. In my last two visits, no matter how strong the criticism of the U.S. presence, Iraqis almost always told me that U.S. troops must stay until security was restored. Now, many are telling me the occupation has made so many mistakes — including the Abu Ghraib prison scandal — that they would rather see the troops leave. A recent Iraqi poll by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies reported that 43 percent of respondents would feel safer without coalition forces.

Should U.S. troops pull out now, I believe Iraq would collapse into chaos. But if those troops were working in cooperation with a legitimate Iraqi government to prepare for elections, the situation might be very different.

So here is what U.S. officials must do if they want to foster an Iraqi government that is more than an obvious front for U.S. power:

Make the new Iraqi government a full partner in military decisions about how to handle insurgents. New finance minister Adel Abdel-Mehdi, leader of one of the two main Shiite political parties, told me: “Coalition troops should pull back from Iraqi populated areas.” He believes that the new government could command more loyalty and recruit better security forces than U.S. officials have done. He also says the United States should vacate Saddam’s palace in central Baghdad for security and symbolic reasons.

Give new Iraqi ministries real control over oil money — and some U.S. funds for reconstruction. U.S. contracts for rebuilding are often eaten up by huge overhead and the expense of enormous security forces. Iraqis could do the job for a fraction of the cost. And such projects could give credibility to a new government.

No one yet knows whether the members of the new Iraqi government have what it takes, although Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s TV chat outlining his program to the public on Thursday was a welcome change from the usual pomp of Arab leaders.

But this government will have zero chance unless the Bush administration lets it govern. In the interests of both Iraqis and Americans, the White House must take this risk.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer.