Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: 1. It must contain NO MORE THAN 2 web-based sources
2. Strictly adhere to the uploaded Turbanian Style. Include endnotes and bibliography ONLY. (no footnotes or parenthetical references)
3. Here are further questions to focus on:
- What were they trying to accomplish?
a. Did they or did they not accomplish it? Why, or why not?
- What was the affect of the battle/campaign on Japan?
a. Did it strenghthen or weaken?
b. It's affect tactically?
c. It's affect as a whole?
- Did they a lot of pilots? Aircrafts? Aircraft Carriers?
- Can Japan, in terms of industrial out put, replace the planes lost?
- Can Japan, in terms of experience/training, replce the pilots lost?
4. This may be a stretch, but if you could find comments made by Isoroku Yamamoto after the battle [of midway], it would be GREATLY appreciated.
5. I cannot stress enough the emphasis that needs to be but on the signifcance of the battle.

Essay Instructions: Case Study Analysis: Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
Part 2: 10?15 Pages Word document

During your first week, you started your research project by submitting an abstract. Your abstract should now be approved by your instructor so you can begin the project. Development for this research project will take place over the next 3 weeks. If you need help, your instructor will work with you to guide your project.
For this assignment: You are to conduct research on and provide a case study of a human-made system of your choice and report on it in a written report. The goal of this paper is to cover technical and operational details and to relate these case study specifics to what is learned in the course. The following are the ideas that were listed in your original abstract assignment.


?GPS
?AFSCN
?Apollo/Saturn V or Space Shuttle
?F-22, C-5A, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, C-17, B-1B, or B-2 aircraft
?Abrams tank, USN aircraft carrier
?CDMA-based cellular phone system
?Hoover or Aswan Dam
?Eisenhower Tunnel
?IBM PC or MAC
?Mars Lander and Rover
?Denver International Airport
?Cruise missile or an ICBM, such as MX
?Your company?s IT infrastructure
?FAA enroute air traffic control
?Power grid, nuclear power plant, wind power, or geo-thermal energy plant
?Homeland Security
?Mars Rover System
?Robotic System with a specific application
?Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) - Predator, Globalhawk
Research project deliverable: After you receive approval from your instructor to proceed, begin work on your research project and report. You should present a well-formatted and profesional document including the key items outlined in the assignment description.

?Your report should be approximately 10?15 pages.
?A minimum of 3 sources including at least 1 non-Internet journal article.
?Any documents (drawing, spreadsheets, etc.) that are created using software other than MS Word should be pasted into your MS Word document and not submitted as separate files.
?The Final Research Project is due in the 5th week of the course.
?In addition to your own research, you can use the Web resources found near the end of the textbook.
?The purpose of the project should be described in detail.
?The project should be one that is appropriate for the length of time available.
?The project scope should be clearly identified.
?The technical and program risks associated with the project should be identified.
The report should contain the following:

?Title Page: The title page contains a title, the course number, name, and date.
?Table of Contents
?Introduction
?Proposed explanation based on evidence available
?Goals for which the paper is being written
?Explanation of why the research paper is being written
?Description of the experimental setup
?Thesis statement
?Materials and methods: The paper addresses the systems engineering (SE) concepts covered in this class. Appropriate analytical SE methods should be used, including the details of the process used in research. The procedure should be chronological and in a detailed manner that leads the readers to the results.
?Results: The results are to be reported objectively. The obtained results are presented in a summary. Each result should be elaborated separately. Lengthy explanations should be avoided.
?Discussion: This section discusses your analysis on the success and failure of the assumptions and whether the objectives were achieved. If the answer is negative, explain why the objectives were not achieved. Identify tradeoffs and design alternatives.
?References: The research paper should have a wide variety of sources, including non-Internet sources. All sources should be accurately documented in APA format.
?Appendices: Graphs, charts, bar diagrams, and pictorial data should be included in the appendices.
?Acknowledgments: Acknowledge help received from outside resources.

Essay Instructions: Research Paper Essay (Argumentative Essay)

This paper will be an argument debating on who should reconstruct Iraq. The debate will be between the United States and United Nation. I believe the United States should be the one reconstructing Iraq.

Essay must contain the entire requirement listed below:

--Must incorporate and properly document a minimum of two secondary sources into the essay.
--Format essay in MLA style?short essay format.
--Must have a Work Cited page, obviously with a minimum of tow entries in proper MLA style format.
--Essay must exhibit a formal structure with an introduction, body, and conclusion.
--Essay must not include any use of first or second person.
--Essay must be a minimum length of 900 words or a maximum length of 1100 words.
--Must underline thesis and topic sentences.
--Must be one of a kind essay.
--Essay must be 12 point font.

Presenting Your Views Effectively: When arguing a position on a controversial topic, assemble supporting evidence from the following sources.
--Facts, including statistics
--Expert testimony
--Firsthand observation (What have you seen and heard?)

Argumentative Appeals: The Logical Appeal (Logos): an appeal to the mind of intellect. Relies on evidence that is factual, objective, and relevant.


---->The information on the bottom will get you started on the paper.

The issue: Should the U.S. lead the reconstruction of Iraq, or should the U.N. take the reins in the rebuilding effort?

Critics of a U.S.-led effort say: U.S. efforts to play the lead role in rebuilding Iraq and sideline the U.N. and other nations following Iraq?s defeat will slow the reconstruction effort. A U.S.-led rebuilding plan will also inspire animosity among Iraqis who might view the U.S. as an occupying power.
Supporters of a U.S.-led effort say: Since the U.S. did most of the work in ousting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power, it should get to dictate the terms of the peace. Handing over the rebuilding to the U.N. and other nations would mire the effort in diplomatic wrangling and bureaucratic delays.

Iraqi demonstrators in May 2003 call for a role in the reconstruction of their country.


In April 9, 2003, millions of televisions around the world showed images of U.S. soldiers helping a crowd of Iraqis topple a statue of their leader, Saddam Hussein, in a square in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. The scene marked the approaching close of a three-week-old U.S.-led war in Iraq, aimed at ousting the longtime U.S. adversary. The statue's fall also served as a symbol of the end of Hussein's repressive 23-year regime, which had brought war and ruin to the Middle East nation of some 25 million people.

Nearly a week later, on April 15, U.S. President Bush (R) announced that the Hussein regime had been deposed. (The actual fate of the Iraqi leader, however, remained a mystery.) Two weeks later, Bush declared an end to all U.S. combat operations in Iraq. While the proclamation brought down the curtain on a tumultuous few weeks of war between the U.S. and Iraq, it also ushered in a new, critical phase. With the war now over, the U.S. has shifted its attention from conducting warfare to rebuilding and restoring peace in the battered nation.

In the days following Baghdad's fall, the capital and other major cities were wracked by a fit of lawlessness, as some Iraqis engaged in rampant looting and vandalism amid the disappearance of Hussein's police and armed forces. The situation eventually calmed down somewhat, as the U.S. and its allies in the "coalition of the willing" restored law and order in some areas and began rebuilding some of the country's damaged infrastructure.

For all of the coalition's progress, Iraq remains a volatile place. In the seven weeks since the end of combat operations, roughly 60 U.S. soldiers were killed. In addition, there are growing signs of unrest among the Iraqi population over the U.S. military presence in their country. Weeks after the end of the war, U.S. plans to rebuild Iraq have already come in for harsh criticism, as opponents accuse the U.S. of being inadequately prepared to contend with the postwar situation.

The complexity of the task of rebuilding Iraq has been underscored by the diplomatic disputes that have emerged regarding the U.S.'s postwar strategy. The war was marked by contentious disagreements between the U.S. and its coalition allies on one side and those who opposed the war on the other. The end of the fighting has failed to heal those rifts, as questions and doubts over the rebuilding of Iraq have sparked new arguments.

At the heart of the dispute is the question of who should preside over Iraqi reconstruction. In the days following the war, the U.S. insisted that it should take the lead in rebuilding Iraq, with the United Nations and other international institutions playing a significant, but secondary, role in the process. Meanwhile, other countries, notably France, Germany and Russia, which had all opposed the war, voiced their opinion that the U.N. should play a central role in Iraq's reconstruction.

In May, the U.S. won the debate when the U.N. Security Council voted to lift U.N. sanctions on Iraq and grant the U.S. and Britain--the U.S.'s main coalition partner--broad authority to administer the country. Even though the vote formally settled the question of who should lead the rebuilding effort, the issue remains a source of contention. With the U.S. encountering difficulties in restoring stability to Iraq, the criticism of U.S. postwar leadership and planning has only intensified.

Critics have denounced the U.S. insistence on assuming leadership in the rebuilding effort, arguing that it will slow the reconstruction process. They point out that the U.S. does not have a good track record in nation-building, and will need the help of other countries in rebuilding Iraq. Detractors contend that heavily involving the U.N. and other countries in the rebuilding effort will bridge the diplomatic divides that were caused by the U.S.'s march to war. In addition, they point out that only a U.N.-led reconstruction effort would be welcomed by Iraqis, who critics note are already growing resentful of what they see as a U.S. military occupation.

Bush administration officials and their supporters defend the U.S. push to lead the rebuilding process. They say that involving the U.N. and other countries will only add more bureaucracy--and thus, more delays--to the reconstruction effort. Proponents add that the U.N. and international institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have poor records when it comes to nation-building and reviving collapsed economies. They also note that countries that had been opposed to a U.S.-led war would likely use the U.N. as an instrument to obstruct U.S. efforts to rebuild Iraq. Besides, supporters argue, since the U.S. did most of the work in ousting Hussein's tyrannical regime, it is only fair that the U.S. should dictate the terms of Iraq's reconstruction.

As the U.S. proceeds with its reconstruction plans amid criticism, other questions have been raised regarding the U.S. postwar strategy. In June 2003, the U.S. administration in Iraq announced that it would appoint a council made up of Iraqis that would advise U.S. officials on day-to-day issues. The declaration marked the formal reversal of initial U.S. plans to convene an Iraqi national conference during the summer, at which an interim Iraqi government was expected to be chosen. The change has been denounced by Iraqi political leaders and other critics, who see it as a sign of a prolonged U.S. occupation of the country and a reluctance to cede authority to Iraqis.

Coalition Ousts Iraqi Leader

AFP

A crowd of Iraqis watches as a statue of Saddam Hussein is toppled in downtown Baghdad with the assistance of U.S. forces on April 9, 2003.


The war in Iraq has its roots in an earlier conflict, the 1991 Persian Gulf war. In August 1990, Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait. The invasion drew worldwide condemnation, and prompted the U.N. Security Council to impose economic sanctions in a bid to force Iraq to withdraw. When Hussein refused to remove his troops, a U.S.-led U.N. coalition launched a military campaign against Iraq in January 1991. Within weeks, Iraqi forces withdrew from Kuwait and Hussein agreed to a cease-fire.

In April 1991, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 687, which demanded that Iraq destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction. The council conditioned the lifting of sanctions on Iraqi cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors, who arrived in Iraq the following month. However, Iraq became increasingly defiant throughout the 1990s. In December 1998, the U.S. and Britain launched a four-day bombing campaign over Baghdad because of Iraq's failure to cooperate with inspectors. In response, Hussein permanently barred U.N. officials from Iraq, claiming that he would allow inspections to continue only after the sanctions were lifted. U.N. inspectors would not return to Iraq for another four years. [See 2001 Iraq Policy]

In early 2002, the Bush administration began making a case for a military campaign to disarm Iraq. In November 2002, the Security Council unanimously approved a U.S.-sponsored resolution declaring that Iraq was in "material breach" of previous U.N. resolutions. By the middle of the month, U.N. inspectors were back in Iraq. Despite the return of the inspectors, the U.S. continued to make the case for war against Iraq, arguing that Iraq was in violation of past resolutions because it had not fully disarmed.

After weeks of diplomatic wrangling, the U.S., Britain and its allies determined that diplomacy had run its course. The Bush administration contended that the only way to disarm the Hussein regime was through force. Meanwhile, other countries, notably France, Germany and Russia, maintained that the dispute could still be resolved peacefully, and withheld support for a U.S.-led war. Despite the opposition to war, on March 19, 2003, U.S. forces launched air strikes against targets in Baghdad, inaugurating the start of a U.S.-led military campaign against Iraq.

In addition to disarming Iraq, administration officials said, a military campaign against the country would have other benefits. By ousting Hussein, they said, the U.S. would rid the Iraqi people of a tyrannical ruler who had repressed them for decades. The U.S. also saw a victory in Iraq as a catalyst for reshaping the Middle East, a crucial step in its ongoing war on terrorism, since the region was seen as a breeding ground for anti-American sentiment.

The first days of the campaign saw massive air strikes on Baghdad, and in the northern Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk. Starting on March 20, coalition ground troops crossed over Iraq's southern border with Kuwait. Although the troops encountered stiff resistance and experienced casualties during the early fighting, Iraqi opposition was considered to be generally less fierce than expected. By April 7, U.S. ground forces had entered Baghdad and taken over one of Hussein's palaces.

U.S. forces reached central Baghdad days later. Much, but not all, of the city came under U.S. control as Iraqi troops and officials left their posts. Widespread looting took place in Baghdad and elsewhere. While most civilian homes and businesses were spared, looters sought out property associated with Hussein's regime, including government ministries and the homes of Hussein's relatives and lieutenants.

On April 14, U.S. marines took Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, also believed to be the final stronghold of the Republican Guard, an elite Iraqi fighting force. After Tikrit fell, U.S. military officials said the main fighting was over. The next day, Bush said that Hussein's regime had ended, but he added, "Our victory in Iraq is certain, but it is not complete." Two weeks later, in an address delivered from the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier off the coast of California, Bush announced an end to combat operations in Iraq.


Jeremy Eagle


U.S. Implements Postwar Plans
The U.S. postwar strategy in Iraq entails nothing less than the reconstruction of a country that has been damaged by the recent war and beaten down by years of economic sanctions and Hussein's despotic rule. Under the repressive regime of Hussein's Baath Party, the country experienced social fragmentation and demodernization. Incomes are one-tenth of what they were in 1980, the year after Hussein took power. Much of the country's educated elite has fled since then. One-quarter of the children are malnourished. Experts also say that Iraq may be the world's most heavily indebted country, though some say that it is difficult to establish just how much the country owes because of the Hussein regime's secrecy.

Complicating tasks is Iraq's religious, ethnic and tribal breakdown. The country is largely split among the oppressed Shia majority in the south, the dominant Sunnis in the west and autonomous Kurds in the north. In addition, there is a smattering of Christians, Turkmen, Assyrians and other tribes everywhere. Experts say the various religious and ethnic rivalries could pose difficulties for U.S. attempts to rebuild the fractured country.

The U.S. now faces the task of restoring order to Iraq following the war and the ouster of Hussein's administration. The U.S. needs to rebuild the country's battered infrastructure and revive the stagnant economy. In addition, the U.S. has to prepare the country for its transition to a democratic government after years of totalitarian rule.

In the days following the fall of Baghdad, U.S. forces struggled to bring a semblance of law and order to the city and other parts of Iraq, drawing criticism from both Iraqis and international observers alike. For days, looting and lawlessness persisted, leaving government buildings, hospitals, officials' homes and museums ransacked and damaged. The volatile situation prevented aid groups from entering the country to distribute food and water to the city's residents. It also hampered U.S. efforts to restore basic services, such as electricity and running water, that had been disrupted during the war.

The U.S. administration's difficulties in restoring normalcy to the country have been exacerbated by growing unrest among Iraqis. As the situation in Baghdad and elsewhere has failed to improve, Iraqi patience with the U.S. military presence has worn thin. Thousands-strong rallies protesting the U.S. presence have been held in various cities. U.S. soldiers have also come increasingly under attack by assailants believed to be loyal to Hussein and the Baath Party.

On April 21, retired U.S. Army Gen. Jay Garner arrived in Baghdad to take up his post as head of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. The office was created to provide humanitarian aid, rebuild damaged infrastructure and help Iraqis establish a representative government. His appointment did not last long, however. On May 6, Bush named L. Paul Bremer 3rd, a former State Department official, to be the new civilian administrator in Iraq, replacing Garner. Experts saw the swift reshuffling as a sign that the Bush administration was concerned about the progress of the reconstruction plan.

Just as troublesome for the U.S. has been the diplomatic struggle over its postwar plans. As the war came to a close, world leaders began discussing Iraq's future, and particularly the U.N.'s role in rebuilding. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed his view that the U.N. should play a significant role in postwar Iraq. In a summit in April, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair both said that the U.N. should have a "vital role" in the reconstruction effort. However, many observers noted that Bush was far more wary of U.N. involvement than Blair. Bush reportedly saw the U.N., as well as international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, as playing a largely secondary role in an advisory capacity.

Topping the list of U.S. diplomatic priorities was the lifting of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. With Hussein no longer in charge, the U.S. argued that the sanctions should be lifted to speed up Iraqi reconstruction. Meanwhile, countries like France and Russia voiced their concern that a resolution proposed by the U.S. to remove the sanctions would give the U.S. too much power in the rebuilding process and sideline the U.N.

After weeks of talks, the U.N. May 22 passed, 14-0, a resolution lifting the sanctions and giving the U.S. and Britain broad authority to administer Iraq. The resolution empowered the U.S. and Britain to preside over the sale of Iraqi oil and the disbursement of oil revenue for humanitarian and reconstruction purposes. The U.N. vote was essential because key institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank had said they needed the U.N.'s stamp of approval to free up money for Iraqi reconstruction. In addition, most companies would have been unwilling to sign contracts or trade with Iraq without the U.N. resolution.

In a concession to countries with misgivings about giving the U.S. and Britain power over Iraq, the U.S. agreed to a late change that called on the Security Council to review the implementation of the resolution in one year. The resolution also provided for the appointment of an independent special U.N. representative to participate in the creation of a new Iraqi government.

As the U.S. proceeds with its reconstruction plans, it continues to come under harsh criticism for its handling of postwar Iraq. Many say that the U.S. underestimated the difficulty of the reconstruction effort. Some argue that because victory came so quickly, the U.S. did not have enough time to make the transition from fighting a war to keeping the peace. Finally, even though the U.N. has formally given the U.S. the reins to Iraq, the U.S. decision to take the lead in rebuilding rather than giving the U.N. a major role continues to be scrutinized and assailed by Bush administration critics.

Critics Urge Greater U.N. Involvement

Jeremy Eagle


Critics decry the U.S.'s insistence on presiding over the rebuilding of Iraq. They say that a task so daunting and important as the reconstruction of a country should be taken on by the international community, rather than one nation. "We are no longer in an era where one or two countries can control the fate of another country," says French President Jacques Chirac. "Therefore, the political, economic, humanitarian and administrative reconstruction of Iraq is a matter for the United Nations, and for it alone."

Detractors contend that U.S. efforts to keep the U.N. and other parties sidelined will only slow the reconstruction effort. With the lives of millions of Iraqis at stake, opponents argue, the U.S. should drop its rigid stance on administering Iraq. "We don't think the relief and reconstruction needs of the Iraqi people will be adequately met, based on the overly optimistic scenarios we understand the U.S. government is using," claims Mary McClymont, head of InterAction, the largest U.S. alliance of nongovernmental organizations doing overseas relief work.

In addition, the U.S.'s stubbornness in taking the lead role will stretch U.S. forces too thin around the world, opponents argue. With commitments in countries ranging from Afghanistan to Yugoslavia, as well as the need to maintain a homeland security force, a prolonged U.S. deployment in Iraq could leave the U.S. vulnerable, they warn.

"The U.S. military is not large relative to its global tasks in Afghanistan, Korea, the Balkans, and conceivably elsewhere. Keeping too many soldiers in Iraq will stretch us too thin," says Stephen Peter Rose, a Harvard University professor of strategic studies. "It is important that we not allow our engagements to weaken our global military posture."

Skeptics also argue that the U.S. would be better off handing over the job of nation-building and peacekeeping to the U.N. because the international body has plenty of experience on those fronts. They note that the U.S., for all its military superiority and economic supremacy, does not have a strong track record in those areas. "The American military is the best high-intensity fighting force in the world," Rose says. "But we are not as good at understanding or managing foreign cultures, or at building democracies." [See 2002 Nation Building]

Besides, critics say, asking the U.N. and other countries to play significant roles in the reconstruction will help heal the diplomatic divisions caused by the war. In the months leading up to the war, the U.S. became the target of criticism from other countries, which viewed its rush to war as reckless and divisive. "To repair the damage to America's international image and relations, Bush should invite the United Nations and the world community to share responsibility for reconstructing Iraq and reconstituting its government," writes columnist Stuart Taylor Jr. in the National Journal.

In the end, a U.N.-led reconstruction effort would give the process legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis and the world, according to Bush administration detractors. They say that the U.N. imprimatur would alleviate growing suspicions of U.S. intentions for invading Iraq. Many in the Arab world had seen the war as being driven by economic motives, with the U.S. seeking to gain control of Iraq's oil fields. "There are lots of areas the U.N. can play a role, but above all the U.N. involvement does bring legitimacy, which is necessary for the country, for the region and for the peoples around the world," Annan claims.

Should the reconstruction effort fall short, critics say, a U.N.-led effort would at least allow the U.S. to spread the responsibility rather than be singled out as the culprit. "It's very much in our national interest not only to share the financial costs [of rebuilding Iraq], which will be enormous, but the political costs as well," argues Paul Saunders, director of the Nixon Center, a public policy institute. "If six months from now the situation is unsettled, it would be to our advantage not to be the only ones resented for that."

U.S. Defends Rebuilding Plans, Says U.N. Help Welcome
Bush officials dismiss the criticism of their postwar plans, saying that much of it is based on a misunderstanding of U.S. intentions. Contrary to popular belief, they assert, the U.S. is willing to include the U.N. and other countries in the reconstruction effort. The U.S. "is not going to rebuild the entire country," says Andrew Natsios, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

An unidentified senior administration official offers details on the postwar strategy. The official says:

I think we're looking at something more of a division of labor, where the coalition retains the security function, where the U.N. and international agencies assume a lead role on the humanitarian side and where there's a division of labor or a sharing of responsibility on the political and economic side among governments, the U.N. and, increasingly, Iraqis.
However, supporters contend that since the U.S. did most of the work during the war, it should also get to dictate the terms of the peace. They point out that the U.S. should ensure that the reconstruction achieves the U.S. goal of building a democracy in the Arab world. "We certainly have a right to ensure that our goals, which are the betterment of the Iraqi people, the liberation, the building of a free market economy, and a building of pluralistic political institutions, is the outcome of the process, for the benefit of the people of Iraq, not for the benefit of the United States or France," says Randy Scheunemann, president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a U.S. advocacy group that supported the ouster of Hussein.

Proponents say that giving the U.N. and other international institutions a prominent role in the rebuilding process will increase bureaucracy and slow down the reconstruction. They contend that a multilateral approach risks being derailed by diplomatic wrangling and political constraints. They say such constraints have hobbled past U.N. attempts at nation-building.

Some U.N. officials who were in charge of administering East Timor have said that the U.N. mission there ran into difficulties helping the East Timorese make the transition to autonomous rule. "The unavoidable conclusion may be that the U.N., despite its ability to monopolize the image of legitimacy, is ill-suited to administering territories in transition," asserts Jarat Chopra, former head of the U.N. Office of District Administration in East Timor. (East Timor, a former Portuguese colony annexed by Indonesia in 1975, had been administered by the U.N. since 1999; it officially became a nation in May 2002.) [See 1999 East Timor]

Defenders point out that international institutions like the World Bank and the IMF have mixed records in helping countries get back on their feet. They insist that the U.S. lead the rebuilding effort to avoid the mistakes those bodies have made in the past. The World Bank and IMF's "overall macroeconomic record is horrible," alleges Marc Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning think tank. "After a 20-year experiment in developing countries throughout the world, there are no success stories; not in Asia, Russia, Brazil, Argentina--the list is endless. Why would you want them determining economic policy in postwar Iraq?" he asks. [See 2003 World Bank; 1999 International Monetary Fund]

Finally, supporters claim that the push by other countries for a strong U.N. presence in Iraq is rooted in their respective self-interests. They say that a country like France will use the U.N. to obstruct U.S. efforts to rebuild Iraq. In the weeks leading up to the war, France repeatedly blocked U.S. attempts to push a U.N. resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. Bush administration supporters see France's obstruction of U.S. diplomatic initiatives as part of a French effort to undermine the U.S. dominance in global affairs and preserve its own diplomatic position. "Just remember what the French have done to attempt to thwart American policy," says James Schlesinger of the Council of Foreign Relations, a think tank. Such a path, Schlesinger contends, will lead only to "endless diplomatic wrangles."

Moreover, because France has considerable business interests in Iraq, Bush administration backers say that it will only use the U.N. to ensure that its interests in Iraq are protected. "Jacques Chirac cares little about reconstruction of basic services," says New York Times columnist William Safire of the French efforts to give the U.N. an important role in rebuilding Iraq. "He is more concerned about maintaining U.N. control--that is, French veto control--of Iraq's oil."

Coalition Reverses Course on Interim Iraqi Authority
More recently, the U.S. has come under criticism for its proposal to delay the appointment of an interim Iraqi government. In early June, the U.S. and Britain announced that they would create a 25- to 30-member council of Iraqis to help craft economic and political policies. The proposal would replace the coalition's initial plan to convene a national conference in the summer to be attended by hundreds of representatives from the country's religious, ethnic and tribal groups. That conference had been expected to result in the creation of an interim Iraqi government that would have shared administrative responsibilities with the coalition until the country could hold democratic elections.

Coalition officials contend that the advisory council will have real power in setting reconstruction policies. As the coalition continues to focus on restoring law and order in Iraq, officials say, the council will have a strong voice in setting the agenda in other areas, such as education, finance and trade. Experts say that the coalition's decision to postpone the formation of an Iraqi government reflects U.S. concerns that going through such a process at the present time would only deepen the rifts between the country's different religious and ethnic groups.

In response to the announcement, Iraqi political leaders vowed to press ahead with plans to hold a national conference. "The U.S. cannot cancel a conference that is led by Iraqis," says Entifadh Qanbar, a spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a coalition of exiles who had opposed Hussein. "We believe it is very important for Iraqis to go on with this." Qanbar says the INC and other political groups would organize the meeting and decide on the form and membership of a transitional Iraqi authority.

Some Iraqi leaders warn that the interim council might not win popular support among the Iraqis. "It makes a big difference when the Iraqi people see Bremer appoint an administration and when the Iraqi people pick an administration," says Hamid Bayati, a senior official with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. "Our constituents wouldn't like it."

U.S. officials say that coalition plans to form the interim council could still change based on Iraqi feedback. "This whole process had to be informed by Iraqi views and preferences," says an unidentified senior U.S. official. Bremer defends the decision to push back the creation of an interim Iraqi government, saying that he is still committed to creating a democratic Iraq. "If we just slap together something quick--even though that may be what some people want--it's not going to work," Bremer contends. "I am committed to establishing democracy here. But to do this right, it will obviously take time." [See 2003 State, Defense Departments Disagree over Future Iraqi Government (sidebar)]

Reconstruction Continues as Dangers Grow
The U.S. reconstruction effort has proceeded apace amid the criticism and the growing dangers for U.S. troops stationed in the country. In mid-June, the U.S. launched Operation Desert Scorpion, a military sweep of Iraqi areas considered to be hostile to the U.S. military presence. The operation sought to quell organized anti-U.S. elements and to mollify Iraqi civilians with the distribution of humanitarian aid. As of the end of June, roughly 60 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq since May 1, the day combat operations were declared over.

Meanwhile, USAID has completed its initial round of assigning reconstruction contracts. The contracts for the rebuilding of roads, airports, sewage and irrigation systems, and other projects were all granted to U.S. corporations. The largest of the eight contracts was awarded to Bechtel National Inc., in a deal for construction that could be worth up to $680 million over 18 months. USAID has since been criticized by business leaders and lawmakers, who say that competition for the contracts was limited to a small number of firms and favored companies with ties to the Bush administration. [See 2003 U.S. Awards Reconstruction Contracts (sidebar)]

Speaking to lawmakers and reporters via teleconference from Baghdad, Bremer in mid June touted the coalition's accomplishments thus far, but warned that the task ahead was monumental. "We've begun the process of putting a country together that has been ravaged for 30 years by political tyranny and economic underinvestment," Bremer said. "And repairing the damage of the last regime--material, human and psychological--is a huge task, and it's a task that is only going to succeed if we have a real partnership with the Iraqi people." As the U.S. pushes through its plan to rebuild the battered country, it is becoming clear that winning the peace may well be harder than winning the war.

--->Bibliography
Baldauf, Scott and Seth Stern. "How the UN May Fit in Postwar Iraq." Christian Science Monitor (April 23, 2003) [accessed April 23, 2003]: .

Chandrasekaran, Rajiv. "Iraqis Say They Will Defy U.S. on Council Plan." Washington Post (June 4, 2003): A14.

Gibbs, Nancy. "When the Cheering Stops." Time (April 13, 2003) [accessed April 14, 2003]: .

Hitt, Greg and Marc Champion. "Nations Begin Tussle over Control of Postwar Iraq." Wall Street Journal (April 9, 2003): A10.

Robbins, Carol Anne and Neil King Jr. "As Saddam Hussein's Regime in Iraq Disintegrates, Bush Faces Critical Choices Over U.S. Role in World." Wall Street Journal (April 10, 2003): A1.

Slevin, Peter. "Iraqi Leader Criticizes U.S." Washington Post (June 14, 2003): A16.

"U.S. Declares End of Iraqi President Hussein's Regime." Facts On File World News Digest (April 17, 2003): 281.

--->Additional Sources
Additional information about reconstruction of Iraq can be found in the following sources:

Braude, Joseph. The New Iraq: How Iraq's Reconstruction Can Benefit Its People, the Middle East, and the World. New York City: Basic Books, 2003.

Mackey, Sandra. The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein. New York City: Norton, 2002.