Former terrorism expert Paul Bremer has arrived to take charge of Iraq as the new US administrator, replacing Jay Garner.

Mr Bremer will decide which Iraqis join the interim administration.

Americans want the new government to be made up of returned exiles and local Iraqis, representing Iraq's ethnic and religious spectrum, while Arab leaders have called for the UN to take a central role.

Thousands of Iraqis have taken to the streets to protest against what they see as a foreign occupation of their country.

Should the UN be included now in working for a democratic Iraq? What is the fairest way to introduce a new system of government? How long should US-led coalition forces remain in Iraq?

Click here to watch Sunday's edition of Talking Point

Or click here for an audio-only version

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

Your reaction

Huge numbers of Iraqis are suffering (and potentially dying) from lack of basics such as clean water, food, medicine, hospital equipment and electricity, and yet some people on this page seem more concerned with punishing the UN and 'rewarding' the pro-war countries. We're talking about human lives here - surely this should transcend our own feelings of pride, reward and punishment.
Stephen Speed, UK

Iraq should be administered by a joint administration of the UN and Arab League Peter, Canada

Iraq should be administered by a joint administration of the UN and Arab League. This should go on until democratic institutions are laid down and the rule of law is enforced. Then elections will be held coupled with gradual withdrawal of foreign elements and handing over the country to the Iraqis. The "coalition" of US/UK, and Australia should provide military protection from foreign aggression temporarily until a powerful Iraqi military is restored. They should also bear the full cost of rebuilding Iraq alone seeing as how they are responsible for destroying it. Apart from that, they should have no say whatsoever in anything that has to do with the fate of Iraq.
Peter, Canada

Why should the UN get any authority in Iraq? They are happy to moralize while we shed blood for Iraqi freedom, but they still want a cut. It would be insulting to the Iraqis to put such double-speaking cowards in authority over them.
Richard Murray, UK

The coalition should stay in charge of Iraq until stability is regained. It is foolish to believe this will be done in a matter of weeks. It will be months if not years. The worst possible scenario would be an Islamic state which would produce a tyranny equal to that just disposed of.
Anne Daun, Australia

I find it so amazing that the same voices that claim the US has abandoned post conflict situations in the past or "left before the job was done" are the same people now claiming the US and the coalition should get out of Iraq immediately just because of a few demonstrations in Iraq - most of which were organised and conducted by the totalitarian Shia segment of Iran. Why do we even bother trying to do anything good for the rest of the world? Sometimes I wonder.
Jason, Detroit, MI, USA

It will take them time to find their voice Gina Seay, New Zealand

It's a vexed question. But I hope that the people of Iraq will find a form of democracy that works for them. They, and other Middle Eastern nations, have been betrayed and manipulated by many foreign governments in the past and it will take them time to find their voice. Hopefully, when they do, people of other nations in the region will see their example and want the same for themselves. Only when the dictators are gone, can governments of the people begin to co-operate with each other. This could be the first step on the road to building a great Arab Federation in the Middle East - something to rival the US and the EU in years to come.
Gina Seay, New Zealand

I think that the United States should relinquish the administration of Iraq to the United Nations. This would not only provide a more democratic body through which to oversee reconstruction, but it would also show the Arab nations, and the world, that America's intentions were, as stated, to liberate the Iraqi people, rather than to amass power, oil, and huge reconstruction profits.
Nel Olson Ivancich, USA

Give Iraq back to its own peoples. They are an intelligent people who are capable of ruling themselves in a sensible manner. Do it as soon as possible and earn their respect. Do it in a colonial manner and we may see anger and hostility raise its head in Iraq and other countries.
Des Borland, UK

The US has clearly done enough damage to Iraq and needs to withdraw its troops and allow the UN peacekeeping forces to take over. As it stands we are illegally occupying Iraq and they want us out. It seems each day brings a new "post-war" horror story of casualties. The Shock and Awe campaign is shocking and appalling. Yankees, come home!!
Beverly Bravo, Denver, Colorado, USA

The Iraqi people are free to choose their own government. The Brits, USA and Aussies should make sure that all Iraqi groups are represented wisely. No one wants to lose the ground we've gained. For once it would be nice to see the world unite, and celebrate that they are finally free to have the right of choice. Sadly - after reading here I'd say many wish we failed altogether. So typical for the west to be damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
Jo, Florida, USA

Iraq is free and we will leave Tyrone, USA

When have US ever occupied another country for oil or for anything? The USA gets more heat for liberating Iraq than the Soviet Union ever did occupying Eastern Europe and invading Afghanistan. It's no wonder why Eastern Europe supported Bush and Blair in this war. The rest of the world seems to have forgotten who kept the soviet empire at bay. Iraq is free and we will leave. I don't understand why the world mistrusts the USA when history has proven our good intentions many times over.
Tyrone, New Jersey, USA

The UN has neither the power nor the personnel to do this job. As a Swiss Citizen originally from Iraq I think and I am sure that the Swiss Federal government system is the best for a country like Iraq. Both Switzerland and Iraq have multi ethnical and religions people. The Swiss system was and still functional for the last 150 years and will be so for the next hundreds of years. Again with the Swiss system the president of the Republic change automatically each year. The change of the president each year is the best medicine against dictatorship and corruption, which we see in many countries. To answer the question how long should US-led coalition forces remain in Iraq? I think as short as possible so that the new transitional government can work properly.
Redha, Switzerland

The UN is utterly discredited in the United States which foots the lion's share of the cost for its existence. Should the UN fail to permit the sale of Iraqi oil on the open market for funding the rebuilding of Iraq because the French or Russians are holding it hostage to their garnering major contracts or UN rulership, or reinstalling the UN weapons inspectors, that will be the last nail in the UN's coffin.
Mark, USA

A prolonged stay for the Americans can only complicate issues in the region further Julian Mwine, Kampala, Uganda

The daily demonstrations in Iraq show that the Iraqis do not want the Americans to stay on as their rulers. The Americans should stay only long enough to repair what they destroyed and get the essential services running again. After that they should let the UN oversee a transition to a democratically elected government in Iraq. A prolonged stay for the Americans can only complicate issues in the region further.
Julian Mwine, Kampala, Uganda

My thoughts on this are: 1. The US is not terribly worried if we are "popular" the World over. 2. Everyone who had nothing to do with the liberation of Iraq should keep their mouths shut. I don't believe in arm-chair politics from people that have nothing invested in this. 3. The US, UK and Australia will find an even-handed approach to the political future of Iraq. 4. The UN, France, Russia and Germany should sit this dance out. They made their positions clear very early on and I think at this late date they should rethink their idea of "diplomacy". The right thing will be done whether everyone in the world believes that or not. Good-Luck to Iraq.
Mr Sandy Clark, San Francisco, USA

America and Britain invaded Iraq. They were telling the whole world that they were going to remove weapons of mass destruction and liberate Iraqi citizens from oppression. There are no weapons of mass destruction so far, Saddam is gone. Now since they came to "liberate" why don't they reconstruct the infrastructure they destroyed using their own resources and not Iraqi oil? They defied the whole world opinion and went to war are they now again going to defy Iraqi citizens who are telling them thank you very much you sent Saddam away go home now we can do the rest? Is this how a super power should and is going to behave?
Ogwanng Chris, Soroti-Uganda

The Iraqis must be able to run their country by themselves, under the auspices of the UN. The British tried the puppet government deal in Iraq post-Ottoman, and that got them absolutely nowhere. The Americans have also been wildly unsuccessful at it, historically speaking. Hello, Afghanistan? A year and a half after supposedly "liberating" the Afghanis, there are regular uprisings and the people have no political or cultural direction. God only knows how long we'll feel it necessary to maintain a presence there. The Iraqis have to muster up their national pride and prevent the Americans from ruling, and prevent Bush from getting his sticky fingers on the Iraqi oil.
Megan Simpson, Columbia, Maryland, USA

What would the US do if in democratic elections the Iraqis elected an Islamist dominated government? Given that the Americans are not strong on democracy when it doesn't suit them. Chile, Nicaragua et al.
Bob Brooks, Auckland, New Zealand

Who should rule Iraq is as futile a question under the present American and British occupation. It is more important to know who should restore essential services in Iraqi cities and villages and ensure food supplies to the masses. Of course those who control natural resources of Iraq should do this regardless of religion, colour and creed. All religions teach that it is the duty of the victorious to humanly treat the defeated with utmost care. To provide the basic needs and restoration is moral and financial duty of the coalition including forgiving debt of Iraq. Needless to say Iraqi should rule their country as do American and British theirs.
Asgar Ali Khatau, Brampton, Canada

Iraqis should be the ones deciding on their own government. The notion that the US or UK can give lessons in democracy to the world is absurd, in view of their own deficiencies and hypocrisy in that respect. As for human rights violations, just check Amnesty International for severe violations in both the above mentioned states. The UN would do a somewhat better job of administering the transition period, if only because there can't easily be one 'big bully' to call all the shots.
Nikos Papadopoulos, Athens, Greece

The Brits and the Yanks gave blood to free the place so it's their call, I say. And since freedom was and is the name of the operation the Arabs will just have to wait and see have this all shakes out. Operation restore order could be the current campaign.
Leo Van Sickle, Brighton, Michigan USA

I think the Iraqis should run Iraq. No doubt with the US as the major contributor to the post-war reconstruction - after all they caused it. This would ensure that the beliefs and value system of the Iraqi is not trampled, so that Iraqis are not made to look like Americans; rather Iraqis would be Iraqis.
Osei Kofi, Accra, Ghana

New elections to take place as soon as possible while reconstruction takes place and continue independently Lidou A, London

As ineffectual as they may have been in the past, UN blue beret troops should replace the US army now. New Iraqi leaders (from inside and exiled parties) to start cooperating and work along the UN temporary administration. New elections to take place as soon as possible while reconstruction takes place and continue independently. This may restore some respect toward the USA intervention motives.
Lidou A, London

I don't believe a UN body in Iraq would be suitable; from the reports I have seen there seems to be some mistrust of the UN. I also believe that there should be a committee set up, including Mosque leaders, Engineers, Doctors, Teachers, UN/UK representatives, and some ordinary people from Iraq, this committee could then be used for the appointment of, for example, Civic leaders, Police Chiefs, and even Managers of essential services, (I would include Food producers in this category, for the short term).
Phill Sandford, Yeovil, England

I think the UN should keep an eye on Iraq for a while, and then let it go its own way - if Bush and Blair really want Iraq to have democracy they have to accept that this means they cannot be involved. After all, it was because of the US trying to dictate how Iraq should be run that Saddam Hussein came to power in the first place.
Caroline, Oxford, England

Democracy should be delivered under UN auspices. The hesitation of the coalition to give a key role to the UN is sowing seeds of suspicion in the minds of the world community in general and Iraqis in particular. The government must be chosen by majority votes constituted by all sects and religions.
Mohammed, Delhi, India

There has clearly been no post-war planning whatsoever Ahmad, Kuwait City, Kuwait

The US had a great military success in this campaign, and definitely won the hearts of all Iraqis on April 9. But they have failed to win their minds. They have failed administratively big time. There has clearly been no post-war planning whatsoever. It's in the coalition's interests that they hand over the job to the UN, unless they have a hidden agenda other than WMD and regime change.
Ahmad, Kuwait City, Kuwait

An Iraqi federal government, like the US. So, you have a central government in Baghdad and three autonomous states: Sunis, Kurds and Shi'ite. Then everybody's happy.
Thomas Roode, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands

Certainly not the US and UK. Further if the alleged WMD are not found the US and UK should be made to foot the bill for all the damage and destruction in Iraq including compensation for the injured and lost lives.
Ram Manohar, Calicut, India

An Iraqi transitional government protected by the allied forces for at least 2-3 years, then elections under the supervision of Allied forces and UN for the first elected government in the new Iraq.
Fakher Hashim, Abu Dhabi, UAE

Of course the Iraqis ..enough already of the big mess created by the US and UK. And I mean the Iraqis living in Iraq not the outsiders living abroad.
Fuad, Egypt

The UN should not be part of this process Shorna Sinniah, Hong Kong

The Iraqi people should run their country but under the supervision of the USA & Britain. The UN should not be part of this process.
Shorna Sinniah, Hong Kong

Iraq should be run by the coalition forces only, until some basic democratic fundamentals have been established. This may take many, many months and the USA and the UK should resist any outside criticism. It is a case of re-educating a nation in democracy and getting it away from blind hatred of everything western.
Freddie Paz, Argentina

The US must be held to its word. It has made a commitment to support self government by the Iraqi people. "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master." - Lincoln
Brian Larson, San Luis Obispo, California, US

The UN is the only organization capable of running the country without a profit motive. The request by the Bush administration to lift the sanctions is pure commercial i.e. political self interest. The US could start by sending the huge USDA food surplus to help. That would not suit Bush's campaign contributors, who are all looking at or for billions of dollars in post war business.
Hans Boekdrukker, Gent Belgium

I think I have read enough fear and loathing about my country today. The biggest arrogance of all is unconditional rejection and criticism of a country that the world relies on to underpin world order (trade and security) even if we do act in our own self-enlightened interests. It's like taking your medicine and then whining about it. If you don't like the way we govern our world then do something constructive about it and make everyone happier.
Joe, USA

Many people think that the war was some sort of a competition: the "winners" (US, UK) get to control the "loser" (Iraq) Peishan Tian, Australia/Singapore

I would like to respond to those who wrote that the UN should not be given the right to help govern Iraq because it was the US and UK that "did the job" and "shed blood". This goes to show how many people actually thought that the war was some sort of a competition: the "winners" (US, UK) get to control the "loser" (Iraq).

If the US is true to its word, acting only as a saviour to Iraqis, then they should let the Iraqis enjoy the freedom to run their own country. Iraqis might have been mistaken to have voted for Saddam as their leader in the past. But the US and UK were also mistaken when they sold chemical agents and ammunition to Iraq in the 80s.
Peishan Tian, Australia/Singapore

The world can learn from East Timor; without proper planning, the people will in the end suffer. The Iraqis have suffered enough, with the amount of money spent on the war by USA, and the allies, the same, if not more money should be spent to rebuild it, with the guardian of UN.
Gerald, Malaysia

The Coalition should leave Iraq immediately! This will leave the ungrateful Iraqis to their own devices, and with the assistance of other equally ungrateful Muslim neighbours, they will self-destruct in weeks!
Alan Viegas, Alice Springs, Australia

The US / UK should rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure (this should be paid for by the coalition of the coerced), then the US / UK should leave. Who should run Iraq? Iraqis.
Dale, Ottawa, Canada

A council made of US businessmen should run not only Iraq, but the entire globe Nabil Sasso, Dakar, Senegal

A council made of American businessmen, mainly from the oil and military industries should run not only Iraq, but the entire globe. This will hopefully spare us "justified" wars in the name of "democracy and human rights" for the next 50 years, at least!
Nabil Sasso, Dakar, Senegal

US should run Iraq for the time being and restore normality before handing over to capable Iraqis to run the country. It's too early for US to move out of Iraq because it must restore peace first.
Simo Athonio, Madrid / Spain

No need to repeat and say what millions have already mentioned. "Iraq must be run by Iraqis." But who cares? Britain? With her bloody background and present foxy ways of calling the Persian Gulf "Gulf" to take more cheap? Or the recent colonizer (USA) herself?
Nassy, St Petesburg, Russia

Bush, Blair and Berlusconi should run it, from Baghdad, of course. Full time job. This way they would be out of our sight for some time.
Geneletti, Bergamo, Italy

If the UN gets involved, we will still be waiting for a decision this time next year.
David Collins, Southampton, England

The only conclusion that I have come to after the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is that first destroy a country and its institutions by bombing them and then rebuilt it. This seems to be a good business.
Shahid Ghazaal, Karachi/Pakistan

Iraqi people deserve to govern their country. Americans should leave Iraq. They are the invaders and have no right to govern Iraq.
Hootan, Tehran

Would the US and British launch an all-out war on any European nation without planning the post-war government? It's obvious this was a racist war with no regards to the Iraqis. What kind of liberation was it? Look at the mess they're in. If the Iraqis elect an Osama Bin Laden equivalent politician, will the US and British bomb their nation again because they don't like Iraq's election result? I feel very bad to see my tax money goes to making bombs that are used on innocents.
Abraham, Redwood City, CA, USA

People cannot be forced to live together against their will John M, UK

It's surely time to stop thinking of Iraq as a single entity. If any lesson can be learned from the former Yugoslavia it must surely be that people cannot be forced to live together against their will. At best Iraq may succeed as a federation of three states (Kurdish, Sunni, Shi'ite).
John M, UK

Should the Baath party be dismantled? Saddam Hussein's regime routinely abused human rights - this must end. The habit of silencing political opposition must stop too, so the Baath party has to stay and behave democratically.
B, UK

What's most important is to put in a democratic system of government which will prevent the rise of another dictator. If the people of Iraq then elect an anti-western leader, then so be it, but the people will then have the option of replacing this leader if his policies don't benefit the voters of Iraq. The US and UK should help facilitate the formation of the interim government, but the UN should also be involved to monitor the subsequent elections and give them the international legitimacy that they require.
Mike, California, USA

The Iraqis will rule Iraq, BUT the framework will be from the West. The Shia leadership will want a "church" state similar to Iran. This must be rejected regardless of the cost. It is already a failure in Iran. It would be like saying that Iraq can choose any government it wants including a new tyrannical dictatorship. I think not! The Shias must learn to compromise as part of a representative style democracy or federation.
John, Bloomfield, New Jersey, USA

The British have the most experience Ned Simonis, Woodinville, WA., US

The British have the most experience creating the administrative and legal structures required in Iraq in its transition to a democracy. They have a great deal of colonial office experience to offer. The Americans have extraordinary records of success in rebuilding water, electrical, and communications systems. The task of rebuilding Iraq must be assigned to those who can perform rather to talking heads. Practical solutions are needed in Iraq, not political. Leave the United Nations out of it.
Ned Simonis, Woodinville, WA., US

It was obvious before the war started that neither Blair nor Bush mentioned where the democracy in Iraq was going to come from. It will take many months of negotiations to determine who is best placed to run in any elections before such elections can take place. Do the Iraqi people have any idea of what political contenders exist given the repression they've experienced?
Barrie Smith, Ipswich, UK

Foremost on their agenda must be the emancipation of women. An educated, literate, respected and confident mother will give her children invaluable strengths that will sustain them all their lives. Lacking education and status, illiterate and subservient women are mothers to intellectually weak peoples. Such people are easily coerced and led by those who would exploit them for their own personal gain and questionable beliefs.
Peter Curtis, Fareham, UK

The US must step away from even the interim process Ellis, New York

Some Iraqi exiles have gone on record saying that the interim leaders are not really important, but that's not true. Any Iraqi who is appointed to control even the water, postal, or electrical services will be that much more empowered and entrenched come election time. Interim leaders will have the upper hand in terms of infrastructure and resource control. That is why the US must step away from even the interim process, and avoid bias of any kind. Jimmy Carter could also lend some credibility to the process, but the US should exit the process entirely.
Ellis, New York, NY, USA

The UN must have the central role in administering and reconstructing Iraq for the time being. A proper Iraqi government, acceptable to all Iraqis, should eventually be elected into place under UN supervision. Only then will any new Iraqi government have legitimacy within Iraq, and across the world. Only then will long-term stability flourish within the region. Only then will wounds heal across this fractured world. Anything else will be a sure-fire recipe for disaster.
Chris, Malaysia

I think any government that has credibility in the eyes of Iraqi people, capable to understand their feelings & fears (it would be a grave mistake to disregard them, there is no excuse here). What goes next? I think a healthy dose of realism and naked truth (a strong and credible mass media in place could do the job). From my own experience in Lithuania, our people and politics 13 years after liberation are still guided more by emotions rather rational mind. I believe we should not talk too much about bright and prosperous future of Iraq until people there don't see clear results.
Ugnius Soraka, Kaunas, Lithuania

Washington and London should first begin rebuilding the people of Iraq Steve G, Newcastle

Washington and London should first begin rebuilding the people of Iraq. A good start would be to render assistance to the Iraqi civilians injured due to coalition military action. It doesn't mater how much Washington wants the next Iraqi leadership to be pro-American, unless there are monumental steps taken now by Washington and London to aid the Iraqi people. We could see a separated Iraq at war with each other, with each faction looking beyond the borders of Iraq for military support.
Steve G, Newcastle, UK

The fairest way to introduce a new government is to get every party involved . A constitutional conference if possible should be arranged for Iraqis to sort out their differences on the table. This is the only way by which a stable and acceptable government can be ushered in. Any attempt for US to directly or indirectly impose someone on Iraqis will be met with resistance. It is also important to carry along the Arab world in the new government. US must stay clear of this otherwise, another Saddam is on the way
Suraju Ajadi, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

My comment is this that throughout this war and in the aftermath, there have been very few women's voices heard. Women are only portrayed as victims of war. There is a gender gap that has hardly been recognised. Women, constituting half of the world's population must be given a say in decisions on going to war and also those that will decide who should run Iraq. I have often wondered what Cherie Blair's opinion was of the war?
Susan Martin, Glasgow, Scotland

I think the US and UK should handle it, since they created it. The world refused to take part in the beginning and should refuse to take part now. Aside for lending humanitarian aide, the US and UK should finance and set up the new Iraqi people for the new Iraqi people.
Peter, St. Petersburg, Russia

Every Arab state and coalition should do their best to help the Iraqi people Nabil Abdel Ahad Abdel Baky, Cairo, Egypt

Every Arab state and coalition should do their best to help the Iraqi people elect a new president and a new government which must include all Iraqi factions, cultures and religious sects. The United States and Britain must keep themselves away from ruling Iraq. Otherwise they will certainly suffer disturbances and troubles from widely-different Iraqi groups, religions and aspirations. It would be better if any democratic state helped Iraq follow democracy in its elections and political life. If we really want to help Iraqi people live in peace and stability we should call for the coalition states and their forces to leave Iraq as soon as Iraqi people take the power of their own country.
Nabil Abdel Ahad Abdel Baky, Cairo-Egypt

Iraq should definitely be run by the Iraqis. After this war it could become an Arab state where people can find dignity, not just by saying no to the west, but by building a decent, tolerant, modernised society they can be proud of, a state where the people can speak the truth and that other Arab states can look up to. To accomplish this though, the Iraqi people have the tough challenge of getting out of this entrenched Arab mindset, born of years of humiliation and colonialism, that insists on upholding dignity and nationalism by defying the West, which is more important than freedom, democracy and modernisation.
Victoria, Norfolk, Virginia, USA

Iraq should be run by Iraqi nationals. It should not be run by General Garner or any one else.
Taufiq Lodhi, St Albans, UK

Iraqi Government should be - for the people, by the people. They will take time to be like US or UK or India. The only people who could and should help transition in this phase are coalition. Losers are not invited to the party - Saddam, Chirac, Putin, Schroeder. What ever the reasons for the war (WMD etc.,) the people of Iraq have certainly benefited, which they have certainly expressed. The views of the so called "Arab" states don't have any importance whatsoever.
Shankar, India

This is a huge task and one I'm not sure the USA and UK are ready for Stephen Edwards, Winchester, UK

Not the UN which is useless, nor France, Germany, China or Russia, who don't deserve any say at all in Iraq's future. I'm afraid we have no alternative but to allow the USA and UK to establish a new government in Iraq. This is a huge task and one I'm not sure the USA and UK are ready for. I think the alternative - the UN - would be a disaster though, so we have no alternative. A mirror image of democracy in the UK or the USA established in Iraq would be a democratic beacon for the rest of the Middle East. It's therefore very much worth doing.
Stephen Edwards, Winchester, UK

For those who like to criticise, it would be useful to note that UN has manage with relative success in administering East Timor, Bosnia, Kosovo and Cambodia. The UN has by far a better record in rebuilding civil society than the vaunted US administration. Shall we remember Afghanistan?
Aaron, Toronto, Canada

US-based transnational corporations will run Iraq regardless of what puppet government is installed.
Joe, Texas

Iraq lacks the skills needed to administer itself Jimmy Hughes, Stirling, UK

Iraq has been run down by Saddam and probably lacks the skills needed to administer itself. I think the US is desperate to ditch it, but wants control of the flow of oil and contracts. The UN is the only alternative. What authority does Bush have to dictate who will run the Iraqi administration?
Jimmy Hughes, Stirling, UK

Shouldn't the "weapons of mass destruction" be secured before a new government is formed in Iraq?
Ross Tarara, Woodland, CA USA

Everyone says the Iraqis are the only ones who should set up the new government in Iraq. That sounds good at first glance but as we all know history shows that they haven't done a very good job of that in the past. Another brutal dictator is not what we need.
Dan Walton, Atlanta Ga. USA

In creating a new Iraq, there needs to be a mechanism to hold a new police force to account so that abuses of the past don't reappear. One mechanism might be to have posts within the force that are filled from other professions on a rotating basis to ensure broader society gets a view as to what is happening with the police.
Jim, Ottawa, Canada

Only Iraqis can make a new government that mirrors in their personality as a nation Altamash Hai Khan, Karachi, Pakistan

The only people who have any right whatsoever in the governance of Iraq are the Iraqis. If some external authority has to be there for a smooth transition it has to be the UN and no-one else. The allies should bow out if their objective was freedom; if it was not they can stay as rulers. As only Iraqis can make a new government that mirrors in their personality as a nation.
Altamash Hai Khan, Karachi, Pakistan

The US and UK have proven their integrity with the principled operation of the war. There is no reason for the French, Germans and Russians to be allowed to exercise any control by way of the UN. Through their de-facto political and direct military and technical support of the Baath regime, they have shown that their own political and economic interests override any supposed concern for the wellbeing of the Iraqi people.
Robert Lindberg, London, UK

I know first and foremost who should not run Iraq; that is the Americans. I have supported them from the word go and as far as I am concerned they have achieved their aim and should now join forces with either the UN, or with their war partners the UK, to guide an Iraqi transition to stability.
Osanakpo Austin, Lagos, Nigeria

I think love should be the cornerstone in the development of a new Iraq, utilising the humanitarian aid available to best effect and reinforcing the current police force with UN troops as a contingency measure to continue peace once the regime has fallen. God bless America.
Craig Somerset, Cardiff

It's no use asking who "should" run Iraq. The best route to democracy is of course to have a vote and let Iraqis decide who should be their leader. But that is not going to happen. The coalition will put their puppet Chalabi to rule, who has not even been in Iraq for 40 years.
Ratna, USA

As Iraqis are grateful to the UK and US liberators, they will not be forgiving if the UK and US are insensitive to Iraqis culture Wisam Al Baldawi, Baghdad, Iraq

As Iraqis are grateful to the UK and US liberators, they will not be forgiving if the UK and US are insensitive to Iraqis' culture and intellect and feelings. After all, we do not want history to repeat itself when the Brits ruled Iraq and paved the way towards the manipulation of the majority by chosen sects or minorities.
Wisam Al Baldawi, Baghdad, Iraq

It seems totally short-sighted not to put military medical facilities into Baghdad and Basra to help the Iraqis bearing in mind how few casualties the coalition has suffered and the huge resources at their disposal. Would this not be an easy way to win hearts and minds?
Merlin Dormer, London

Rebuilding Iraq is the UN's obligation. Paying for it is the responsibility of the US and Great Britain. The US is in economic shambles since Bush was put in office by the Supreme Court. Why would anyone think he can lead a coalition to successfully rebuild Iraq? Historically Americans have demonstrated their expertise at destroying things not rebuilding.
Jim White, Maine, USA

The only people qualified to answer this question are the Iraqis, they and they alone have the right to determine how their country is run. There have already been demonstrations against the occupation. How long will it be before Baghdad has its own version of Bloody Sunday?
Richard, Halesowen, UK

The Iraqis - however they want - democratic or not. The arrogance of Western democracies assuming that their way is the best and only way is quite breathtaking. Regardless of whether that is true or not, it's not our choice to make.
Katherine, London UK

First, establishment of individual states within the country. This will allow for local customs, laws, judges, etc. Then establishment of a federal/national government, with a constitution which states the rights and responsibilities of citizens and the various branches of government, jurisdiction, and state/federal communication. Then a representative congress created by elections. The last step, is the election of a president/leader. This would let the Iraqis bring the framework in any direction the want, while preserving local interests.
Philip J Riley, Boston USA

The ordinary people of Iraq should have a system that allows them to dictate how they are governed and by whom, and most importantly have the constitutional ability to change their leadership if they do not like what is going. I am afraid that this will never come about as long as dictatorships exist in neighbouring countries. For this reason, I think it is best that the USA now marches on Damascus and sorts that lot out. Better to do it now well the Arabs think they are complete devils, then I think everything will get better and the sun will at last rise on a peaceful Middle East.
Mike Pritchard, Cheltenham, UK

The US and UK should now stand back and let the legitimate global organisation take over Jo Salter, Ipswich, UK

I think that the aim should be to return as quickly as possible to an Iraqi (democratic) government and that the UN should assist in setting this up. The US and UK should now stand back and let the legitimate global organisation take over.
Jo Salter, Ipswich, UK

It is a good time for the oppositions to prove their efficient roles on the ground and a better time for Iraqi redeemers to assess the attainment of these oppositions to lead Iraq towards democracy. There are a lot of disparities of the living condition in Iraq as one country. The better known is bought up by the prosperous governmental of Saddam regime's oppositions that served in Iraq itself along 13 years since the Gulf war. These oppositions should have prominent role in running the new Iraq because of their demonstrated services for the Iraqi people, unlike other oppositions that were calling by the name of Iraq people while they were seeking protections in other countries away from Iraq.
Eva Pattaw, Erbil, Iraq

Iraq should be run by democratic government elections should be held as soon as feasible. If the USA means what it says they should leave Iraq at the earliest to prove that; but unfortunately that is not going to happen. They are not going to leave Iraq. They will set up a government of their choice and rule Iraq as they did in Afghanistan, Kuwait etc.
S Razvi, Kashmir, India (presently in UK)

Definitely not the US. The war is being seen, rightly or wrongly, as an attack on Islam - and if the US takes control or sets up a government of its own choice the surrounding Arab countries will feel even more threatened. It has to be the Arab League with the UN who take control and stabilise the country if further terrorist attacks on the US are to be avoided.
Amy, Brighton, UK

Those who run Iraq should possess intelligence, an openness to all ethnic groups in Iraq and above all, a clear desire to hold true the peaceful and religious values of this very ancient culture and civilisation. They should also demonstrate that they are free of any desire to be linked to any world power and be truly or totally independent. Inviting community leaders to form an assembly, followed immediately by elections would allow each area or 'canton' in Iraq to have a free and fair say in determining the makeup and shape of any future government.
Nick Callaghn, Northampton, UK

Iraq must the ruled by the Iraqis, and the USA and UK must leave. The UN Arab league, or OIC should have the role for peace keeping and to arrange the election there. The USA and UK are the parties of this current conflict and shouldn't have any role for the future there.
Hassan, Paris, France

Give the world one example of the UN helping to create a government successfully; I will then accept it. I think the US and UK have been pretty good at this - more so than the UN! Let's look at the true recent history. We helped Germany, Japan, and S Korea, we bailed out France, after WWII and recently Russia. Is the US's record perfect? No, not by a long shot - but at least we have had a running record unlike the UN. I hope the UN sticks to what it does best and that's give us some sort of direction not dictate who does what where.
John, Baltimore USA

First the US/UK should get some basics in place (a sort of constitution). Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of lifestyle, separation of judiciary and state. They should set up a democratic process. Then they should enforce the first free election of Iraqis for Iraqis.
Tim, UK

No matter what the world say, Iraq will be ruled directly or indirectly by America or its agents. As long as Gulf states have the wealth of oil, America will remain there. The American version of democracy will be another "Saddam rule" for Iraqis. If Osama is called a terrorist in America (which he is) Iraqis would be justified in saying bush a terrorist, because he and his allies are responsible for deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians and children in the name of liberation and allegations of having WMD.
Zeeshan Ur Rub, Karachi, Pakistan

The top priority in Iraq is to establish a framework of governance that does NOT encourage corruption at all government levels; a situation all too prevalent in far too much of the world. The UN's primary interest under the influence of France, Russia and Germany would be a framework to honour the billions of dollars owed to them for weapons contracts (their principal reason for opposition to Saddam's removal in the first place). The coalition - and NOT the UN - must establish this framework within which the Iraqi's can elect their own government.
Tony, Brisbane, Australia

Hopefully Iraqis can ascend from the wreckage of their country and realise self rule Kathleen, Bodega Bay, CA, USA

How quickly the media and the hawks have turned this "pre-emptive strike" to destroy supposed WMD in Iraq into the liberation. Now the Iraqis will have to be liberated from USA, Inc. led by Bush and cronies. Hopefully, at some point in the future they can ascend from the wreckage of their country and realise self rule.
Kathleen, Bodega Bay, CA, USA

I think the USA should be in charge at this time with Britain and many other countries, as the United Nations is a failure and a powerless entity.
Kaviani, Vancouver, Canada

The whole world owes the Iraqi people a debt, most for ignoring their plight, and some profiting from it, for too long. This 'renewing' of their country, should be assisted politically, financially, and in the true spirit of humanity, by all nations who seek to benefit from liberated Iraq.
Pete G, Exeter UK

This is the real challenge! The US and UK have taken the bold step of liberating Iraq from a 30 year dictatorship. Now we will see if the democracies of the world will lend a hand in leading the Iraqi people into the 21st century and fostering the institutions and attitudes that will allow the first real democracy to take hold in the Arab world - or simply stand by whining that it can't be done!
Bill, USA

The formation of a new regime and placing peacekeeping forces in Iraq should be done with the participation of the UN. Among the people selected to perform this task should be residents of Iraq and a contingent of prominent people of the Middle East, and not only representatives of the Western Nations.
P van den Muysenberg Detroit, USA

I am amazed at the number of people who believe that the UN should run Iraq. Can anyone name a single country that the UN has assumed control of that didn't collapse? Look at Haiti! The only area the UN has shown any capability is in humanitarian aid, in other words giving away things for free. Let them do that in Iraq, and leave the nation building to the Iraqi people with the assistance of those who paid in blood to free them.
Bob, USA

Now is the time to recruit UN support and bring in police from various countries to keep order and to settle disputes Doreen M Gillespie, USA

We can agree that with Saddam Hussein's rule coming to an end, peace keeping in all cities is essential. Now is the time to recruit UN support and bring in police from various countries to keep order and to settle disputes. More looting, damage and crime will be expected without support for local businesses, families and organizations to exist with security.
Doreen M Gillespie, USA

Who should run Iraq? Ultimately the Iraqis. For the short term; definitely not the UN. If the UN had had its way, Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party would be in power indefinitely. To turn Iraq over to the UN would be the ultimate betrayal of the Iraqi people.
James, USA

Iraqis, the liberating nations, and help from neighbouring countries. If other Arabs only come to blow themselves up then there will never be peace in the Middle East.
Steve Baran, USA

If Bush and Blair are sincere enough to really want Iraqis to be free and live peacefully then they must give a chance to let the Arab League to participate in maintaining law and order in Iraq. I am sure the Iraqis will be very glad to see their own kind of people helping them at this critical chaotic situation.
Kamarudin, Malaysia

The UN had its opportunity to be relevant in the Middle East. Thanks to the French and Russians wanting to cover up their complicity in Hussein's crimes against humanity, they passed that chance up. If they want to play a role now, it's only right that they approach the coalition on bent knee and accepts whatever minor role that the people who did the actual work assign to them.
Jeremy, Canada

Those who advocate that the UN should oversee the transition of Iraq from a brutally oppressive 30 year dictatorship to the first real democracy ever in the Arab world do not seem to recognize the pitiful track record of that organization. UN field agencies such as UNHCR and WFP do a pretty good job at the working level and should be given the opportunity to do so in Iraq, but UN bureaucrats are not the answer to rebuilding and reforming Iraq.
Bill, USA

Looking at the scenes of welcome to the US/UK troops, I seriously doubt that the Iraqi people will tolerate presence of French, Germans or Russians on their soil at all. These three countries committed a final betrayal of the people of Iraq for oil, and Iraqis will remember who gave them freedom, just as Kuwaiti's still remember it 12 years after they were liberated.
Eug, Brooklyn, NY, USA

Just ousting Saddam will never be enough and the Iraqi institutions will need a kick start and protection from the West Takan, Belgium

It seems strange to me to see so many people think the Iraqis can run Iraq by themselves without outside help. It has been proven otherwise many times for many years and this war is the result of the incapacity of Iraqis to agree on a modern democratic and civilised system. Just ousting Saddam will never be enough and the Iraqi institutions will need a kick start and protection from the West. Of course there is a price to pay for this and we should expect the Middle East to understand the views of the West only once we applied an acceptable government that will not instigate violence.
Takan, Belgium

The member nations of the coalition should pick a government for Iraq to restore basic functions until elections can be held, but the Iraqi people may not be ready for that for a long time. The UN and all non-coalition countries should have no say in the matter. The coalition is bringing the freedom, and must do what it takes to help the Iraqi's realize it. The UN, France and Germany are not the least bit interested in that.
Larry, Louisiana, USA

It is basically Iraqis who in time must run Iraq, but until then the main role should go to the coalition forces because they have given their 'life and blood ' to liberate Iraq. The UN must also play an important role.
Froilan Gomes, Indian in the United Arab Emirates

Maybe these people need another dictatorship; a civil one of course. These people are behaving like animals, even looting hospitals and museums which housed important artefacts of their own history and culture. Maybe they don't deserve democracy.
Jim, USA

Who should run Iraq? The Iraqi people of course. Any further US/UK occupation will lead to suspicion and further hatred of the west. The US and UK should set things up and quickly move out. There should be sincere humanitarian support from outside, no political manipulations from inside. How this is done will give us a true picture of the motives behind the war.
Anoop Kavirayani, United States

Only the brave liberators, USA and UK can be trusted by the majority of the entire nation to rebuild the country Mohammed, Iraq

There are a number of religious sects that form the Iraqi nation. History tells everyone that we do not get on well together. Only the brave liberators, USA and UK can be trusted by the majority of the entire nation to rebuild the country. I personally would not back a UN alternative. There is too much bureaucracy. Too much time would be taken to make decisions.
Mohammed, Iraq

Who should run Iraq? How about the Iraqis? How arrogant we in the "west" can be. We fail to understand different cultures and fail to learn from our own history. There is perhaps only one positive thing that could now be done to prove that words are not just words, and that is to take all the tanks on into Palestine and tell the Israelis to get out and stay out. How can we expect the Arab nations to trust "liberators" who have double standards? Unless we learn to listen, terrorism will always have a cause.
Sylvia, England

The war is all but over but the fighting will continue. "Let Iraqis run Iraq" is an over statement. The coalition will establish a puppet government, the US will try to sideline the UN and undermine its authority. Regardless of all the rhetoric somebody please convince me that the Americans and the British these gallant Galahads these self appointed overseers of the world with absolutely no ulterior motive are solely in Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people at the expense of great social and physical damage and the sacrifice of countless lives.
Benedict Paul Pius, Canada

If the UN does not get involved, this only reinforces one point; the US/UK forces attack Iraq because of economic interests.
Leonard, Singapore

The same nay-sayers who said that Iraq would not be better without toppling Saddam and who expressed doubts about the US/UK war effort are now nay-saying the reconstruction efforts - after a few days! I say give the coalition a chance before calling them imperialists.
Robert, USA

Unfortunately the US is determined to keep out anyone who may have been involved in the previous Iraqi administration Lenn Barker, Victoria, Canada

Unfortunately the US is determined to keep out anyone who may have been involved in the previous Iraqi administration. Given that the majority of these people are probably the local administrative experts and ideal candidates for the job, that would seem a vengeful and ludicrous stance to take. Summoning up a totally alternative and acceptable administration will take a very long time, and the Iraqis are in trouble now. The US needs to bite the bullet and accept that fact.
Glenn Barker, Victoria, Canada

The UN should have very little administrative duties. Their mission should be basic supplies and humanitarian aid. France, Germany and Russia what the UN involved so they can do some damage control on the information which will be coming out in the near future regarding illegal sale of goods under UN sanctions. As far as controlling the current lawlessness conditions, look at how the southern half of Iraqi is so quickly getting back to a social control environment. The people of Iraqi have the will and skills to move on. As for the UN, it future is what it can do best and that supply humanitarian aid, nothing else.
Boone, USA

As long as French and German politicians continue to thwart perceived American policy in order to curry favour with their own constituency, it would be folly to let the UN into the process. Now is the time for hard work, not politics. Let the UN do what it does best; debate. Let the Americans do what they do best; get things done.
Ken, USA

A UN administration is by far the most likely route to a free and truly democratic Iraq - not a puppet subject to the imperialistic designs of the Bush Administration. It is also the safest outcome for US and British forces. Without a UN mandate, these knights of the colonial power must either take shelter in their iron chariots while the country descends into and warlordism, or get out on the streets to keep law and orders and risk getting shot at by snipers and blown up by the myriads of Middle East suicide bombers anxious for glory and revenge.
Brian Wren, USA

Definitely NOT the UN, which has been part of the problem and NOT the solution - as has France, Germany, Russia and China. The UN should focus on rebuilding its destroyed credibility - or better still at creating a successor organisation.
Chris, UK

The solution is to have United Nations forces and supervision to replace the correlation armed troops Karim, Egypt

Iraqis; just Iraqis. This is my point of view - no one but an Iraqi is to rule Iraq. But there are many ethnicities in Iraq, so the solution is to have United Nations forces and supervision to replace the correlation armed troops. These are to help the Iraqis build a democratic state and then leave an independent state whose people could rule themselves.
Karim, Egypt

Iraq should be run by Iraqi people under UN supervision and control while the occupying forces provide interim security and policing functions. There is no reason for any country to control the agenda for Iraq no matter what their role was in invading Iraq. That is the only way the rift between US and UK and all other nations opposing invasion of Iraq could be healed.
Al Khan, USA

If the job is to liberate Iraq, then America's objective is about to be accomplished. But America may stick on to provide a fathering role to a nation which is still in ruins. Ultimately Iraq should be left sovereign in governing and administrating the welfare of the country.
Mel Lee, Malaysia

The Iraqis in Iraq. Not the expatriate Iraqis who abandoned their country or those drug dealers led by Chalabi who the CIA and Pentagon sponsor. The US an UK should get out, they killed and destroyed enough to satisfy their warmonger supporters. Bush and Blair should be prosecuted for war crimes in Baghdad.
John Li, Australia

To me Iraq must be ruled by the UN, because if the UN allows USA to rule they will be there just to exploit Iraqi resources to help in recovering huge sums of money that they used in the war with Iraq saying that they want to remove Saddam's rule in Iraq yet they have a hidden agenda behind it all as the war has affected the innocent people of Iraq, and after it all there was no Saddam whom they were seeking. Thus Bush must say his true cause of attacking Iraq.
Dennis, Kenya

As an American that does not subscribe to any mainstream political mantra, I would like to see the US and UK led coalition to lead the reconstruction of Iraq. That being said, however, I think it is more important to restore the world's confidence in the United Nations than to squabble with the French, Germans and Russians with post war contracts. The UN has more experience in this sort of operation and it would expedite the return of our troops.
David Finn, Louisiana, USA