With the regime of Saddam Hussein now over in Baghdad, focus is turning to post-war administration in Iraq. This is a second page of your comments on who should run Iraq.
The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:
While I believe Mr Blair's motives have been close to sincere, I have reservations about Mr Bush and the interests he represents. The UN should run Iraq to start with and help the democratic process get off the ground.
Edward Beaven, Calgary, Canada
Having a single president or prime minister would be the worst solution. I think the only solution would be a council of three. A member appointed by the UN from the Northern, Middle and Southern Iraq. This would force each faction to work towards a common goal.
Graeme, Australia
The invading forces of US and UK must withdraw from Iraq at the earliest opportunity. They do not have any legitimacy in this war and already they have massacred thousands of innocent people. Leave Iraq and Let the Iraqi people decide their future rulers. US and the coalition must make compensation to Iraqis.
Amm Nizam, Colombo, Srilanka
 the US government and British government should be deeply involved with the Iraq post-war government  |
I do not trust the UN in regards to running the post-war Iraq government. What I do not understand is why so many people are against the US? It is clear that this Iraqi regime has murdered over a quarter of a million of its own people. Liberating Iraq from this wicked regime should be accepted by all as a relief to the people of Iraq, not to mention the safety aspect of the US and UK. I believe that the US government and British government should be deeply involved with the Iraq post-war government. Then after there is a sense of stability, run back home and allow the Iraqi people to rule their land without terror.
Sarah, London, England What country like outsiders to govern and run their institutions? USA and UK ignored the UN charter. If someone can feel hatred for USA and UK governments in all circles of Muslims, he can surely oppose any US/UK led government in IRAQ. Another dictatorship after dictatorship in the name of Democracy and Liberation should be condemned. UN should stabilize Iraq for its own sovereignty, as well as for people of IRAQ.
Askar Abbas, Lahore, Pakistan
Whatever form the future Iraqi government takes, let's hope it will not be drawn along tribal lines. "Tribalism", if such term exists in the political dictionary, has gone against progress and real democracy in this part of the world.
H Khajah, Kuwait
Although this is the greatest threat to his regime he has ever faced, given Saddam Hussein's durability, defying expert opinion over the last 15 years, I believe there is a real threat that if he isn't killed or captured he could continue his tyranny through a 'puppet' government - due to his almost endless blood links and contacts in influential Iraqi circles.
Matt Scott, London, UK
Iraq must be run by Iraqis. Let the Arab League have no say as to who should run Iraq for this irresponsible body supported the massacre of innocent Kurds by doing nothing against the now toppled murderous regime.
Madalitso lowole, Lilongwe, Malawi
Saddam's regime have fostered fear and hatred for decades and left the country in a complete mess |
I'm pretty fatalistic about the whole thing. Saddam's regime have fostered fear and hatred for decades and left the country in a complete mess. No matter what the Coalition do they're going to be hated just as much across the Arab world. Obviously, long-term, the Iraqis should rule themselves, but either the new regime will turn out to be vehemently anti-US or the rest of the Arab world will accuse them of being puppets.
Peter, London, UK It sickens me that the spineless three France, Russia and Germany now demand to be part of the reconstruction of Iraq. Of all the nations who should know how it feels to be liberated from a Fascist dictator it is these three. France in particular adopted a moral high ground when they were just defending their own commercial interests. They should be shut out of any decisions and should certainly not get close to any contracts to help rebuild Iraq. The Arab nations should be involved with the US and the British that's it.
Kevin Parker, England
I see French President Jacques Chirac has expressed his "satisfaction" at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. Isn't this rather hypocritical given that he was going to veto the war and wouldn't help? France should not be allowed to have any input into what happens to post-war Iraq. France continues to change sides like they have always done, just like in the two World Wars.
Andy M, Preston, UK
What strikes me today is that there is no unity among Iraqi opposition leaders, and that these leaders seem to represent no one but themselves. Reconstructing Iraq will be a long and difficult process, from which no country should be barred. The war was a cakewalk in comparison to what rebuilding will be. If the UN do not rule the reconstruction, the countries who will do it will be ultimately responsible for their failure.
Frederic Lagoanere, France
What right does anyone have to say "Iraq will have a democracy"? Democracy leads to capitalism and secularism. This is not what Iraq or the Middle East needs. The answer is the Islamic Khalifa system, not just for Iraq but for the whole region.
Kevin Bryce, London, England
I am somewhat concerned by the number of comments I see claiming that Iraq should be pro UK/US. How is that democratic? Surely the Iraqis should be governed as they wish to be, and the preparation should be done as impartially as possible, and the closest thing to that is certainly the UN. The arrogance of the US and UK has to stop and legality returned to this situation.
Benjamin Curnier, English in France
The Iraqis should run Iraq - eventually. At this point we don't know how long that will take. From the posted comments, it's apparent that the US is in a "no-win" situation. If they stay too long, they're "colonialists", if they leave too soon, they're just "brutish war criminals".
Ken W, Tallahasssee, USA
The US and UK should implement an interim regime that stabilizes Iraq |
Anything the UN has touched has been ruined. The United States has a fine historic record of assisting nations in implementing stable governments. Just look at France, Germany and Japan if you need examples. The US and UK should implement an interim regime that stabilizes Iraq for only enough time for the Iraqis to decide the future of their government. I believe this is what will happen.
Brent, Austin, USA If America and Britain want the world to believe that they are indeed pro-democracy, they should put their legs out of Iraq just after the war. There are some worries that colonialism is back through another blanket. We thank God that you have liberated Iraq but this should not give you the right to stay there. We will conclude that Saddam was just a scapegoat, your mission was oil. And it is racist to think that there are no Iraqis who can rule their own country
Muhingo, Iringa
The UK still has some influence in the Arabian area, principally with the Trucial States and Jordan. The UK should therefore establish a tutelary government in Iraq and act in an advisory capacity until Iraq has recovered from the war and has formed a stable democracy. Increased UK influence in the Arab areas would counterbalance the US influence perceived through their Israeli proteges and enable Arab interests to be expressed in dialogue between the US and UK. Arab nations would do well to cultivate friendship with the UK. The UK is mote likely to treat the Arabs as responsible nations than the US, who always have to keep one eye on the pro-Israeli vote.
Steve Robey, Harwich, UK
It is an inescapable fact that Iraqis will run their country in the long run; the twin tests of the interim administration must be the speed with which aid is rushed in and the degree of stability imparted. A country that changes policy so much, like the US, is better for other jobs, and it isn't fair they should have to do all the work. A country with no hint of pecuniary advantage or history of involvement (eg. Canada; not UK, France, Russia etc) plus a combination of experts from aid agencies should be pressed into service. The cost of rebuilding should come from countries that sourced weapons to Iraq rather than the attackers.
Mark Aitchison, Christchurch, New Zealand
Their ways of life, governance and development must be self-controlled, but not external control Nuwamanya Sulah W'kabirigi, Butare University, Rwanda |
Iraq should be run by Iraqi people themselves with out any external influence. Democracy is what people choose to be and not what others what them to be. Their ways of life, governance and development must be self-controlled, but not external control. The culture of a country or society determines the form of democracy. Every one should know that. America, UN, Britain or any other should not run Iraq except Iraq people themselves.
Nuwamanya Sulah W'kabirigi, Butare University, Rwanda Before determining who should rule Iraq, I think we should first of all ask what type of government should replace Saddam's regime in the long run. If a democratic system is expected to be put in place of Saddam's dictatorship then we should say that the Iraqis themselves should rule Iraq. And not the United State, the United Kingdom or the United Nations. I believe the US, UK or UN would wish to see a democratic government. The sooner the government for Iraqis is set up the better.
Fredley Sisimia, Honiara, Solomon Islands
I think any leadership elected by the people should be pro-America and Britain; we have seen today what the Arab nations are like for hiding the facts. Also, there will never be true peace unless Muslim leaders and states don't start caring for their people more than hating everyone else. As for France and the UN; well thank god its not 1939.
Robert, Stockton-on-Tees, UK
I think it's important for the Americans to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. It is the Iraqi people who should decide how they are governed. It's wonderful to see them liberated, but it didn't come about for honourable reasons. If you believe the US or UK is primarily interested in the plight of the Iraqi's you are very naive.
Donal O'Reilly, London
I believe the Iraqis will build a bright future for themselves. |
To say that Arabs are incapable of accepting democracy is both racist and naive. The basic concepts of liberty and a representative government are powerful things. Look at Europe prior to the 20th century. Look at Japan prior to World War II. I have a great deal of respect for the Iraqi people. Now that they are no longer at the mercy of a tyrant and those in Europe who have worked tirelessly to keep him in power, I believe the Iraqis will build a bright future for themselves.
Michael V, USA That the UN should be involved in Iraq is beyond doubt, but am I alone in feeling the disgust of watching the spineless and corrupt troika of France, Russia and Germany now "insist" their interests are protected by the very authority they undermined? A clear case of not wanting to get their hands dirty, whilst still enjoying rewards due from courageous action and at the cost of lives. Like many, I am somewhat disillusioned by politics in general, but it has been a pleasure to watch politicians taking unpopular stands, risking their careers, and being thoroughly vindicated; a toast to Blair and Bush, shame on Chirac et al, and from all of us in the west, congratulations to the long-suffering Iraqi people!!
Alan, London
The best route to democracy is for the US to get its military out as soon as possible, apologize to the UN for ignoring international democratic process, and let the real "people of peace" do their job.
Noel Boyle, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
I think the USA and UK should initially run the country until the major reconstruction of the infrastructure and economy has been completed at their expense. At that point an attempt can be made to hand over to a democratic Iraqi government - but only after the US and UK have repaired what they have destroyed. Quite frankly, I hope the US doesn't do what it did in Afghanistan and wash it's hands of the business before it is finished - a bit more responsibility is called for and less Rambo attitude.
John Keys, Frankfurt, Germany
I feel that it is time the Arab nations did something more than just talk. Iraq is slipping out of Saddam Hussein�s grip, and the need for policing and security is imminent. Should not the Arabs provide policing until an Iraqi police force is set up? It would be the most sensible and positive thing the Arabs could do to help their neighbour. It would also dissolve any problems that might occur due to language or culture.
Neva Mohammad, Kuwait
Iraq's new government should be Pro-American, Constitutional Monarchy (with the Hashemite ruler), fully representative of the Shia and Sunni Arabs, Assyrians, Kurds, and Turkmen. The country should be helped and supported by US and UK only. These are the only two stable and organized nations of power. No UN or France should be allowed near Iraq. They are useless and have been the obstacles for 50 years. Good luck, Iraqis!
Antek, US
Ultimately Iraqis must have their say in electing a popular government through a general election John Smith, Jamalpur, India |
Ultimately Iraqis must have their say in electing a popular government through a general election. Pattern of the election could be one among various models available, e.g. Universal Adult Suffrage or Proportional Representation. However, in the short term, the USA and UK plus other coalition countries have the moral right to restore law and order and set up institutions of governance for reconstruction. After all, its their soldiers who have shed their blood in this war of Liberation!
John Smith, Jamalpur, India I propose Carlos Menem as president. He has had 10 years of experience as president of Argentina, is of Arabic origin, and has always had US interests as a first priority.
Ed, Netherlands
To all those who think the UN is a waste, I propose that the United States and Britain take over all the functions of the UN and run it better from their own pockets. In short, put up or shut up! By the way when are you going to adequately fund projects in Afghanistan? Since the UN is incompetent, surely you have the money to do it!
Alan Hester, Chicago USA
Who says Iraq needs a democracy? Democracy is a western system of government and a cultural misfit in the region. There aren't many countries in the region which have successful Democratic systems of government.
Amanda, Sydney, Australia
Post Saddam Iraq should eventually be run by an Iraqi government. In the transition period, a joint administration between Iraqis and the coalition should take control. The UN is totally incompetent when it comes to running countries, look at the evidence of Kosovo etc. Iraqis are well educated, peaceable and friendly people who, given the opportunity, will come up with a government which suits all sections of the community
Rodger Collins, Silverstone GB
the coalition troops now should allow the humanitarian aids go in immediately to Iraq because there are still people dying and suffering |
As an Iraqi, I have mixed feelings at the moment. I am very happy that Saddam's era is over, but I am very sad about the innocent lives lost and very very concerned about the injured people in the hospitals. I think we should take it step by step, as the coalition troops now should allow the humanitarian aids go in immediately to Iraq because there are still people dying and suffering while we read these comments, and then and only then let the political issue supervene.
Ammar, Baghdad, Iraq A pro-USA regime will be the only outcome. Does anyone believe USA can tolerate another regime that might say no to it? I personally don't expect too much positive influence from UN either. The starting of the war has proven how powerless the UN is. No doubt, USA will be the biggest winner through the all event.
Yafeng, Zhengzhou, China
Iraq should be run by indignant Iraqis. There may be an interim leadership during the transition period but ultimately the Iraqis will have to choose their own leaders to govern them. The United Nation together with the Arab league should be given a part to play by the US and its Allies in establishing a free and democratic Iraq.
Yonah Siame, Lusaka - Zambia
Any initial administration must include Iraqis regardless of US position. It might also be an idea to bring all the neighbours into some sort of influencing consensus, so as to divert long term alienation and suspicion of Western motives. This is especially important with Saudi, Syria and Iran who may see a Westernised Iraq as a direct threat.
Mark Cottington, Cambridge
No doubt the USA and UK did a crucial job in order to prevent the world from such dictator as Saddam. I think we have to expect that ordinary Iraqi people will manage their country, but again there should be some transition period during which USA and UK will support to establish normal state institutes in Iraq. Do not make me laugh about UN role in post war regulation in Iraq.
Marat, Almaty, Kazakhstan
If the Iraqis want freedom and democracy (an assumption that just cost the US 100 billion dollars) let them have it. The "coalition" ousted their leader; they should leave now and let them pick another one. The US doesn't care about Iraqis, only their oil. No US company should be allowed within a thousand miles of Iraq. If the Iraqis want the UN's help, they should have it. Otherwise, they can figure this out for themselves. That is democracy, a concept that is becoming foreign in the US.
Liz Gaynes, White Plains, NY USA
if the US allow the UN to take care of Iraq then this would create international goodwill towards America |
America is at a watershed. If the US play too large a part in post-war Iraq then the new Iraqi government will be seen as a puppet and international resentment of America will increase. However, if the US allow the UN to take care of Iraq then this would create international goodwill towards America and dispel theories that this war was 'just about oil'. Americans - the choice is yours.
Steve, UK The United States does not want to run Iraq, as it was made quite clear by President Bush and Tony Blair in their last meeting together. The best way to a Democratic Iraq is by letting their own people choose, and let them have full control over the choosing. The interim govteernment should be a total "FULL" UN task.
Justin Reysack, Duluth, MN, USA
Who should run Iraq? This is a premature question. Everyone knows that the US and UK are going to run Iraq directly or indirectly. May God save Iraq and all Muslim countries.
Mohammed Ali, Bangor/ England
After a military government under the UK and USA has restored basic services to the Iraqi people, power should be turned over to all Iraqis, including WOMEN. The new free Iraq should take the lead in introducing women's' rights and democracy to the Middle East. I am deeply appreciative to the UK for liberating Iraq. Good luck.
Bryant Dorsch, Baden, Switzerland
Imposing Democracy is an oxymoron. Democracy should be a free people's choice, a conscious revolution against a suppressor or a conscious political evolution. Democracy presupposes what we Greeks call 'pedia' (political culture/education). Iraqi people will need democratic guidance, and humanitarian support. They are political orphans and they should be helped to stand on their feet again. If we really believe in Democracy we can only support a truly democratic organization to handle this crisis. Therefore I believe that only the UN can and must help Iraq. The rest is simply surplus of hypocrisy. Food for thought; Who should run the planet?
Konstantinos, Athens, Greece
if democracy is to prevail in Baghdad, the UK and the US should have nothing to do with it |
The poor American soldiers are fighting this terrible war in Iraq in the name of democracy. Thus if democracy is to prevail in Baghdad, the UK and the US should have nothing to do with it. And for justice to prevail, the US has to pay for the Iraqi resources raped there and not to monopolize the reconstruction of this country. If any help is to be given, it should be through the United Nations - the organization that has been executed by the US unilateral actions outside international legitimacy.
Maha Afifi, Cairo First, the Coalition should set up a Military Administration to run for about 90 days as it still seeks to sort out the remnants of the previous regime. Secondly, a UN sponsored administration should take over and gradually hand over power to an elected administration.
Jones M Ilukena, Lusaka, ZAMBIA
Democracy is the government of the people by the people and for the people. So it is only expected that Iraqi people should be responsible for who govern them. The coalition force should allow the UN initiate moves to reconcile all factions of Iraq so that a unanimous and a popular government are put in place.
Joseph Omorodion, Lagos, Nigeria
Now we are entering a post war era in Iraq why not take a lesson from the past and introduce a type of Magna Carta/Declaration of Independence to form the basis of the rights of the Iraqi people to the right of freedom and the right of justice. This could be drawn up with Iraqi leaders and the UN and could eventually form the basis of any liberated peoples in the future.
Roy Grainger, Hightown, Merseyside, UK
I agree with Blair and Bush. The UN should play a part but definitely the Iraqi people should be fully involved. I don't agree with the way the war was started but when you see the overwhelming joy on the faces of the majority of the Iraqi people it changes your mind
Neil Watts, Oxford, England
The UN will play an important role in restoring basic services to the public, but an Iraqi administration must be empowered quickly to avoid a Balkanesque anarchy. Like it or not the US (if not UK) military will be necessary to keep the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis from killing one another.
Jack Moore, Falls Church, VA, USA
Iraq should be ruled by Iraqis and not the exiled opportunists Sam Boycott, Spokane, Washington |
Iraq should be ruled by Iraqis and not the exiled opportunists, the revenues from oil should entirely go towards rebuilding the infra structure destroyed by the allied forces, occupation should end quickly and all countries with nuclear weapons should disarmed without discrimination.
Sam Boycott, Spokane, Washington How can the States and Britain have the arrogance to think that they can recreate Iraq successfully? Look at their track record: 1919 - the beginning of Iraq, created by Britain. The CIA /USA Government seem to have trained and backed most of the problem rulers the world has had. What makes them suddenly think that they are qualified to accomplish anything here? Nothing in history makes them qualified in my mind. Let the Iraqis govern themselves.
Judy Wolmarans, Cape Town, South Africa
I can't believe that we, a so called democratic country, are deciding who will run another country! How could we be so presumptuous as to assume we know what is best for a people with a completely different culture?
Soha Saleh, Britain
I think the people who say the US and UK should leave immediately after the war are forgetting a big issue. Iraq is now essentially a defenceless country. Do you think Iran, Turkey and others won't notice this opportunity to go in and carve up the country or settle old scores? The "coalition" now has an obligation to protect Iraq until it can get back on orderly feet and run its own affairs.
Neil C, Winnipeg, Canada
I believe the Iraqi people will still have the fear of Saddam Hussein in them so if he is still alive the country should be run by the UN, until the time Saddam surrenders or dies, before the country should be run by an Iraqi.
Bill Fiifi Sey, Accra, Ghana
Only Iraqi people have rights to run Iraq. The United Nations is the only international organisation in charge of interim government. The US and UK should not consider Iraq as a cake for themselves. Otherwise, nobody will believe in democracy and western values promoted by UK and US. It will be the start of a declining UK and US capitalism.
Nguyen Manh Cuong, Vietnam
America has too many enemies in the Middle East and I feel it would create more hatred if they had most control Marg Riesebos, St Thomas, Canada |
I agree with Mr Blair that Iraqi's should govern their own country, with the help of the UN. America has too many enemies in the Middle East and I feel it would create more hatred if they had most control. I disagree with my own governments stand not to take part in the war. My own family is from Holland and I know what people like Saddam and Hitler can do. It is up to the rest of the world to see that this kind of psychotic dictatorship or control does not continue, for the human rights of all people.
Marg Riesebos, St Thomas, Canada Iraqis should run Iraq and I hope they enjoy the freedom and prosper in the post Saddam environment. Any do-gooders who still think Iraqis hanker for the good old days of torture and repression should open their eyes to the reality on all our TV screens now. You have all been proved utterly wrong. Saddam and his sons would have tormented this country for centuries if we hadn't gone in to sort things out. The odious French have had more trade links with that evil dictator than any other nation. To me that says a great deal.
Rob, UK
Because the whole problem was the freedom of the Iraqi people, obviously they should be the only part who can govern. Otherwise the objectives of the US led war would be exposed as the decapitation of Saddam for the purpose of oil.
Pierre Douaihy, Lebanon
Congratulations! The UK and USA governments have destroyed a country, killed hundreds of innocent people and taken away the future of the rest of the population. What remains is a mountain of rubble, inconsolable grief for the loss of lives and possessions and an enormous amount of hate which will remain in the heart of the Iraqi people for centuries. I wonder how Mr Bush and Mr Blair sleep at night. Perhaps they dream of the money they are going to make from Iraq's reconstruction.
Fiona, Dublin, Ireland
At least the UN tries to speak with a united voice instead of a controversial one Bart, The Hague, Netherlands |
Unbelievable how many people reject the UN. We all live on this single planet. Isn't it more then logical that we try to stand united to make this world a better place for everybody in every nation? The only alternative would be: every man or nation for himself. But you don't believe in that either since you think you have the right to remove an entire regime. At least the UN tries to speak with a united voice instead of a controversial one.
Bart, The Hague, Netherlands This is the US's mess and the US should clear it up. Not a penny of EU or UN funds should be used. If it means the US army bogged down in a 'peace-keeping' mission for the next ten years - then so be it.
Will, England
Who should run Iraq? Who is running England? Certainly not the people, who are mostly against this war.
John, Birmingham, UK
You the British make laugh. Do you really believe that your country has an influence on the USA? Do you believe Bush listens to Blair? And are you thinking that your country and your firm will be consulted for the rebuilding of Iraq? Has the US ever changed its policy due to the UK? How often has the UK had to change its policy to suit the US? Very often. So, continue - it gives me pleasure, I'm laughing well.
Luc, France
To Luc: What's even more amusing is France's pathetic efforts over the past 60 years to establish itself as a power in the world.
Alex, Italy
Would Iraq administered by the UN legitimise this situation? Please explain to me how an organisation of nations originally so opposed to this action can flip 180 degrees and agree to administer the aftermath they were so opposed to causing? Does volunteering (begging) to be a big part of this rebuilding and administration operation prove the UN's selfless attitude? Thank God for the UN. I can see no other alternative for the coalition. They must go down this road. I am sure they wouldn't want to oppose the cohesive, decisive, resolution enforcing nations of the UN and miss the opportunity to truly legitimise their actions. Now we all know how expeditious the UN is when deciding on a course of action. I am sure if they administer post war Iraq, the Iraqis would be in complete control of their country in no less than 30 to 40 yrs.
Nelson Lucero, SLC, USA
This war was not about liberating Iraq, but building the American Empire Claire Cohen, Pittsburgh, PA USA |
The UN should oversee the temporary governing of Iraq while internationally monitored democratic elections are set up as soon as possible. This war was not about liberating Iraq, but building the American Empire, (as per the National Security Doctrine of the Bush Administration).
Claire Cohen, Pittsburgh, PA, USA What's the point when Bush ignores everybody? Since the UN has been rendered irrelevant, maybe it should be dissolved. Otherwise it should press for regime change in the US.
Victor Epie'Ngome, Yaoune, Cameroon
The only democratic way I know is to ask the Iraqi people what they want.
Claus, German in Saipan, USA
Iraq after the war should be run by the USA and UK, forming a transition government towards the collective government represented by all Iraqis from north to south, finally the stable and democratic institutional civil government will be in place. God bless Iraqi people in this terrible moment of scourge of war.
Niwagi Kamugisha, Wichita, Kansas
I'm hoping that the Iraqi Government will be renewed and all the systems of administration from the basic onward gives the best to a new generation of Iraqis.
Armindo Barreto, East Timor
It seems to me that the people who have liberated Iraq should rebuild and should initially run the country. The men who have died for the belief of those countries, and the commanding officers and men who are already in Iraq should not be pushed aside by the very people who wanted to talk for the next 10 years while Saddam did what he wanted to his own people. It seems that the French are all of a sudden interested in helping because of the huge construction contracts that will be on offer. The UN could not make a decision before the conflict why should the UN be able to make one now.
Paul McGreevy, Wolverhampton UK
Sounds like it's already been decided regardless of what any non-coalition opinions are. An infrastructure support team managed by about 300 coalition folks to restore power, water, sewer, schools, libraries, markets, and trade and to help establish the civil authorities to which these functions will be handed off. The territory and borders will remain as is and a representative form of a constitutional national government remains to be decided, but for the time being a bunch of retired US generals will function as administrators.
TJ, Dallas,TX, USA
Tell France and Germany to keep their hands off! They put NO effort into this liberation and now need no part in running Iraq. Looks like they just want to have a piece of Iraq.
Linda, Detroit USA
If we are serving an advisory role, then Iraqi citizens should operate the ministries Steven Medin, Boston, USA |
Iraq will not be truly liberated until the coalition is out of Iraq. If liberation is the real goal, then the transition should be swift and managed by citizens and ministers of Iraq. It troubles me that the proposed 14 ministries will be run by US civilians advised by several Iraqi subordinates. That's perfectly upside down. If we are serving an advisory role, then Iraqi citizens should operate the ministries. Any other plan will usher scores more dirt like the Halliburton deal.
Steven Medin, Boston, USA The least the US and the UK can do to make this war less immoral and illegal is to have the Iraq people run their Country with the help and guidance from the United Nations. After all, it is their Country and they should have the job of controlling their destiny.
Iris Shearer, Fountain Valley,CA
The UN should have some say, maybe mostly humanitarian. Previously arranged French and Russian contracts should be honoured. The USA and UK should not gain materially from this at all, but they should contribute all they can, to helping set up a viable parliamentary system, with fairly autonomous states, and security for all citizens.
Arlyne, Bergen, Norway
Neither the Americans nor the Brits have any desire to rule Iraq |
The coalition must, of course, attend to setting up the structure for civil order and humanitarian assistance in the first instance, and must do so immediately following the end of hostilities. Very soon thereafter, however, the coalition should announce and adhere to a clear exit strategy, with a plan for handing over control to duly elected Iraqi leaders. The role of the UN must depend upon the extent to which its members vote to participate in realistic and helpful ways, (unlike it has done in other countries and areas where it has assumed responsibility). Neither the Americans nor the Brits have any desire to rule Iraq, and would not stand for it if their leaders attempted to do so for any longer than is absolutely necessary.
Fred Herzog, Seaford, UK We only have to look back as far as the post-war period in Japan for an example of how a country can be rebuilt and democratized. Seems like too many people have forgotten that it was the United States who orchestrated this. In terms of Iraq, it is the US that has the experience, the plan, the determination and the resources - the UN has non of these. Score US 4 - UN 0. Iraq needs a plan that works - not more navel-gazing and political posturing.
Joshua Albert, Toronto, Ontario
Since the United States decided it didn't need the UN's permission to go ahead and start bombing Iraq, the only way to lend any legitimacy to this war is if the US lets the UN step in for the rebuilding process.
Sara, Miami, FL, USA
As a former American soldier, I don't want to see US forces too involved in an occupation and rebuilding of Iraq |
As a former American soldier, I don't want to see US forces too involved in an occupation and rebuilding of Iraq for our soldier's sake. No matter how carefully our soldiers conducted the war, there will be civilian casualties along with thousands of Iraqi military casualties. There will be many Iraqis who hate the US and American soldiers and will always pose a threat to our troops. I hope the nation building phase carried out before Iraqis run their own government can be carried out by multinational troops under the UN flag.
David Green, NYC, USA A large part of me wants to punish the United Nations along with the French for their opposition to the war by not giving them a piece of reconstruction. However, I believe this pettiness should be set aside and give the new government legitimacy under the UN flag. And at the very least, the United States owes Tony Blaire for his political courage and should listen to his views.
Steven Guess, California, USA
I agree with Tony Blair that the UN should have a key role in post-war Iraq and in the end should be governed by the Iraqi people. If the US plays too dominant a role then this will only antagonize the Arabs even more than they are now. If the US tends to take a back seat then this should reduce any criticism that they have gone into Iraq for their own gains. I do support the US, UK and Australian Governments in this coalition.
Ian McDonald, Sydney, Australia
First of all there needs to be an interim government of nominated Iraqis committed to the democratic process for a prescribed amount of time until a proper constitution can be drawn up. The process of fair elections can be then be introduced. The elections should be supervised by the UN and members of the Arab League to ensure that they are fair. Britain and the US should not be involved other than to guarantee security until the newly elected government requires it. Iraq should remain a single entity.
Philip Nash, Milton Keynes
All humanitarian responsibility should be with the UN G. Narayanasamy, New Delhi, India |
Having sidelined the UN ungraciously, the victors should be generous enough to restore some respect to that world body by empowering it to nurture the wounded pride of Iraqis in particular and the Arabs and Muslims in general. All humanitarian responsibility should be with the UN. Incidentally the WMD, if any, should be recorded by UN to receive credibility in the eyes of world population. Any evidence produced otherwise will be suspect. Safeguarding the territorial integrity of Iraq and its population from internal and external threat is the responsibility of the Anglo-American forces till the time this job can be taken over by the Iraqis themselves.
G. Narayanasamy, New Delhi, India France has got a nerve insisting the UN should play a role in post-war Iraq. Since the UN did not have the courage of its convictions (and USA & UK did),USA & UK should instead be calling for the UN's immediate demise (thereby saving a lot of revenue) and only the US/UK should be controlling the transition of power to appropriate Iraqi authority.
Ms N Pursey, Bristol, UK
I'm happy with the US and UK setting up the basis of a democracy that can be handed over to the Iraqis once they're in a position to handle it. I think the French and Russians should keep their noses out now - they weren't willing to help get rid of the regime so they should have absolutely no say in how it's run in the future.
DW, London, UK
Let Iraqis run Iraq. This war was wrong from the start. You cannot go after one man and his family with so much vitriol and in the process cause so much damage to the whole country. I hope that the USA and UK know that to run the lives of other people will only create resentment. By the way, in August 1990 Iraq invaded a neighbour for its own national reasons, and today, it is in turn being invaded for the national reasons of others. How absurd!
D. M. Ogoli, Nairobi, Kenya
It takes a lot longer to change a country than 4 week Angelika, Toronto, Canada |
Iraq must be run by the Iraqi people (and not by Iraqi exiles chosen by the USA). The help needed to build their own government should come mainly from the UN. In my view this would be the only way the Arab world and frankly all the other countries opposed to this war could accept the enormous loss of life and those hideous injuries to civilians. I find it very sad that once again we don't seem to understand that it takes a lot longer to change a country than 4 weeks, 6 months or a year.
Angelika, Toronto, Canada The imperialist, meddling government of Iraq will soon be gone. In the immediate aftermath, British and US forces will maintain order - there is no other choice. After that, the people of Iraq, under UN guidance, with little or no input from France hopefully, should decide their own future.
Michael, Victoria, Canada
Historically the US has been very good at rebuilding countries and helping to establish a government and healthy economic system. Japan, Germany, France and Italy come to mind. Of course then we have to live with the resentment of those we helped, but that's really not a big deal.
Mike, Chicago, USA
I find it amazing that we are talking about democracy and new government already. Remembering that about five days ago we were talking about the "change" in the coalition plan, the best route is to finish what we've started. That being said, education (or re-education) is the key.
Dan, NYC, USA
Iraq should not be run by Iraqis who have been brainwashed by the US to run their country the way America wants it to be run Haroon Chowdhary, Toronto, Canada |
Iraq should be run by Iraqis, not by the US or Britain, or by any other Western power. Nor should any other country have influence over who runs Iraq, or how Iraq conducts its affairs. Nor should Iraq be run by Iraqis who have been brainwashed by the US to run their country the way America wants it to be run. This goes for Iraq and for any other country in the world.
Haroon Chowdhary, Toronto, Canada It saddens me that so many respondents on this page, especially British and American readers, see the UN as having somehow 'failed'. The UN's processes were ignored by the USA and the UK when they started this war. The US has betrayed the multilateral principles its own leaders once espoused when helping to set up the UN. For the US government to inflict itself on Iraq in peace as well as war would be to embrace the old 'right of conquest' - a 'right' which UN members are supposed to have abandoned.
Alex, London, UK
The Germans and French! Historically the US has been very good at bombing but the worst at rebuilding and running!
Eric, Finland
The only way of ending this nightmare is by having a coalition of Arab nations running Iraq Padraig, Leitrim, Ireland |
Never mind the US or the UN running Iraq "post-conflict", the only way of ending this nightmare is by having a coalition of Arab nations running it. The concept of a pro-Israel administration running Iraq will just mean a larger nastier version of the Lebanon for years to come. I can't see any Arab people complying with an infidel government, as no matter what propaganda and spin you put on it, it will still be imperialist.
Padraig, Leitrim, Ireland The US will be very happy to put in their regime in Iraq. They probably want to attack Syria as their next target and accuse the country of hiding Saddam as the US/UK officers are clueless about Saddam's whereabouts. Thus, the world's views will quickly change toward the new crisis while the Iraqis' crisis will be forgotten. While the oil trading continues! War is war, business is business! What a shame!
Pagiasmara, UK
The US can't supervise the process of building a new Iraqi government because they are in a war with the Iraqi nation and will not be accepted. The UN have to do this. They have no self interest in leading Iraq. The Iraqi oil should be used to build a new country and not to pay the war.
Stephi, Basel, Switzerland
I believe that the Kurds should be allowed independence and that a multi-party government without US ties should be established based on a parliamentary system and not an American style democracy. The UN and EU should not be involved in the policy making. France and Russia only tried to prolong the problem by assisting Iraq's forces. They should not be allowed to be involved.
Paul Cody, Illinois, USA
Let us form a federation between the four main ethnic groups - The Shias, The Arabs, the Turcomens and the Kurds.
Murat, Cyprus
They will be responsible for their own destiny Arthur Pierce, Millis, MA, USA |
With the supervision of coalition leadership to oversee fair elections the people of Iraq should be assisted to develop their own choice of a free government. Then they will be responsible for their own destiny.
Arthur Pierce, Millis, MA, USA Make no mistake, the goal is foremost to establish a moderate democracy in this troubled region. In accomplishing this goal, the secondary goals will also be achieved which are to change the regime, disarm any WMD, and liberation. Until this is achieved, I look for Iraq to be governed by prominent members of the exiled Iraqi Congress under the auspices of the US led coalition, with free elections coming about two years after hostilities cease. The UN may take over the peacekeeping functions a few months from now, but those peacekeepers will be decidedly from NATO countries.
TJ, USA
Let the Kurds in the north split away from Iraq and form their own country |
Let the Kurds in the north split away from Iraq and form their own country. They've essentially been ruling themselves for the last decade, and doing rather well at it without a whole lot of help. The Kurds always get the diplomatic short end of the stick, whether in Iraq or Turkey, and it's about time somebody stood up for them.
Maya, Atlanta, USA The UN is a horribly flawed and failed organisation. It would be a fatal error to allow them any type of major hand in governing Iraq.
John, Fort Worth, USA
I thank the US for doing what they did and support their plans for Iraq. At least it will make it a bit more difficult for the terrorists to blow a nuke bomb in my backyard!
Ajay Kumar, Lautoka, Fiji
The UN should run Iraq for as long as it takes to settle all the differences Paul Chenard, Los Angeles, USA |
I personally think that the UN should run Iraq for as long as it takes to settle all the differences that need to be finalised. Now on the list of countries that should stay out of the post war running of Iraq is my country, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China. I think that building a democracy will be a lot easier if these nation stay out of the process.
Paul Chenard, Los Angeles, USA The goal of this expedition was not to establish a democracy. The goal was to disarm Iraq and to remove the Hussein government. When those goals are completed, then the Iraqis with Coalition support should run the government. The UN should stay out.
S Anderson, Mississippi, USA
Since the Bush administration has assured us that this war is not about petroleum, but rather to liberate the Iraqi people, I would expect the US to get out of Iraq as soon as "liberation" is achieved and leave the Iraqis to take their own political decisions. This should include the option of keeping oil production nationalised or electing a fundamentalist Muslim as their leader if they so choose.
Tom, Canadian in Cholula, Mexico
Aside from Iraq's interim administration, could we please borrow Tony Blair to act as president until we have a chance to elect another one?
Nancy Smith, Morehead, KY, USA
The USA and UK have illegally invaded the country against UN 1441, which does not say they should stay in Iraq Firozali A Mulla, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania |
Would the USA and UK like to be ruled by other nations? That is applicable to Iraq. You can build a room, a house but not a home. Iraq is for Iraqis. The oil is theirs. The USA and UK have illegally invaded the country against UN 1441, which does not say the US and UK should stay in Iraq. The population don't want this.
Firozali A Mulla, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania Iraq belongs to Iraqi people. They should decide how to run the country. The UN should provide help.
Ying, Austin, TX, USA
When you have to take tough decisions you must not involve the UN. Too many states and no action will be the result. The Coalition must not only win the war but also the peace. It's up to them to finish their job!
Oizaz, Genk, Belgium
I don't think that the US should run Iraq. But they do need to stay and work with and educate the people that will run their country.
Mary Lou, Florence, USA
The US will rule militarily, briefly, just for long enough to ensure their corporations take over what commercial running of Iraq they can. Then they will leave, in appearance. This was the whole point of this war.
Mary, UK
The UN is not a guarantee of a peaceful transition into effective popular legitimate government |
Why does everyone think that the UN will do such a great job of managing a post-conflict Iraq? Whilst they may have prevented chaos the presence of the UN is not a guarantee of a peaceful transition into effective popular legitimate government.
Bill, Jersey, UK I am utterly appalled at this war in which one man is being sought while thousands of innocents are being killed, and property destroyed. We Americans have no right to act as if we know how to run the world while committing heinous human right violations. The Iraqis need to be involved from the start and need to not be treated like children who don't know how to be good world citizens.
Jessica Stensrud, Haverhill, MA, USA
The United States should definitely not run Iraq! I think it's best that the United Nations should run Iraq until there are new Iraqi leaders.
Sandra IJbema, Amsterdam, Netherlands
The best route for democracy in Iraq is for the United States and "like minded" countries to guide the process as Iraqis learn to implement those processes into their national structure. There should be no concern about whether another country approves or even likes any of the countries involved in the change. At the end of the day, Iraq will have some form of democracy and many people won't like the countries that contributed to that change. Life goes on.
David Cook, Washington DC, USA
The US should immediately get out of Iraq after the war is over |
The US should immediately get out of Iraq after the war is over. The whole expedition has been based on the false premises of Iraq having WMD and Saddam being very unpopular. The people of Iraq should decide their future by themselves. The UN should take over and perhaps peacekeeping forces could be sent in.
Abhay, Delhi, India I support the war, but I think that the UN should run the country temporarily. If the USA take control and run Iraq, the hatred towards the USA will grow.
Morten Myksvoll, Bergen, Norway
The Iraqis should, and will, run Iraq. The US should play as little role as possible in helping Iraqis choose their new leaders, not because that will necessarily lead to impropriety but because given this most sensitive issue, there should not be even the appearance of impropriety. That's where I think the Americans often shoot themselves in the foot. They mean well, and despite accusations to the contrary they try to be fair, but they don't realize that a fair number of people don't often take them at their word. It was heartening to see that Halliburton (Cheney's chums) did not make the short list for some post-war contracts.
Chris, US
If the US are content to let the UN have a major role with a transition to a genuine Iraqi leadership as soon as possible, then maybe their claims about doing this to get rid of Saddam and his WMDs may ring true. On the other hand, if they seek (or impose) a US military occupation followed by a puppet government, which welcomes in the US oil corporations, then the world will draw conclusions accordingly.
Rupert, London, UK
There is no doubt in everyone's minds that a UN-led coalition MUST run Iraq in the immediate period after the war. For anything but this to happen would make the US no better than all the other power-crazy land-grabbing war-mongering countries in history and would show Bush's true colours to the rest of the world.
Brian, London England
Those countries shed their blood for the Iraqis, while the UN sat and watched Emma, Brisbane, Australia |
I believe that the US, Australia and UK should have control over post-war Iraq, not the UN. It is those countries that shed their blood for the Iraqis, while the UN sat and watched.
Emma, Brisbane, Australia The UN has showed itself in recent years to be nothing but an ineffective and expensive talking shop. Equally, a US-administered Iraq would be a mistake as the US is so closely aligned with Israel. The only real solution is for Iraq to be run by the Iraqis, including many highly trained and dedicated expat Iraqis who fled the regime. The UN should be limited to backup or humanitarian roles only.
Paul R, UK
When I think about the US's track record in establishing democracies - Chile, Iran, Indonesia, Kuwait - I can't help thinking that the US definition of democracy must be an extremely loose one.
Anon, UK
Iraqis should run Iraq. The operation is a failure until Iraqis are free to vote and choose a leader from Iraqi politicians. The US and UK's so-called coalition has no right to run and rob Iraq.
Aqrab, Karachi, Pakistan
The Iraqis should run their own country but this obviously isn't going to happen - it will be run by the US, for the US. I think the more appropriate question is "Who will stop the US from running/controlling Iraq?" Answer: No-one.
Aquil Khan, London, England
It is time to go back to the UN. Unless the creation of a post-Saddam government of Iraq is mediated by the UN, it will have no credibility with the international community, nor with the people of Iraq themselves. The government in Afghanistan is supposedly an "interim" one - how long must we wait until true democracy, unsullied by the hands of foreign governments, is introduced to both Afghanistan and Iraq?
Sarah Hunter, Stockholm, Sweden
The UN does not have the means |
The idea that the UN could somehow 'run' Iraq totally after the military fight is over is based on no precendent whatsoever. The UN does not have the means for such an undertaking.
Andrew Paterson, UK If the UN did not support the war against Saddam, then they should not have a role in the rebuilding of the country. The Americans should set up an Iraqi Government as soon as possible, and leave the people of Iraq to make their own future.
Pete, Chandlers Ford, England
Maybe they can do what they did in Afghanistan: Set up a useless interim government with no authority outside the capital and let warlords run their own internal wars. They didn't give any money to rebuild Afghanistan, I cannot see the US lifting one finger to help Iraq as they go on and attack another country afterwards.
Vish, UK
Bush and Blair haven't given sufficient thought to what will happen in post-war Iraq. They didn't have a contingency plan should Turkey refuse to allow US troops on its territory, nor a plan to combat localised resistance to invasion, nor a plan to properly supply their own troops once inside Iraq. All they can do is drop more bombs and kill more innocents.
Nick, USA
The UN should be in temporary control of Iraq and then Iraqis should run it. Reconstruction should be a joint effort - companies related to the people in the US administration who got us into the war should not be allowed to profiteer from it.
Karen Ninnis, Waldoboro, USA
If the UN "control" Iraq then the French and Russians will use their veto to try and maintain the lucrative contracts they have with the current regime. The US should run Iraq briefly and hand over to the Iraqi people as quickly as possible. The UN has proved how irrelevant it is already.
Ben, London, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
Email this to a friend 
Printable version 
