Two plans on table for post-war Iraq

The Bush administration has outlined two strikingly different plans to run Iraq if Saddam Hussain's regime is toppled, according to U.S. officials.

One plan is a go-it-alone strategy that would force the United States to remain longer in Iraq to ensure that its stated goals of disarmament and democracy are fulfilled. While that plan would give Washington more control over what happens, it would almost certainly cost far more and make a larger U.S. military and diplomatic presence more vulnerable to backlash.

The other plan would share the burden of rebuilding Iraq, from purging police and army units to helping write a new constitution.

Under the second plan, the United States would transfer much of the authority and various other responsibilities to the international community after an initial U.S.-run administration lasting as briefly as three or four months.

Washington has no set model in mind, the sources said, although the possibilities include the type of arrangements in the ongoing political transitions in Kosovo province and East Timor.

The administration strongly prefers the international burden-sharing option. But there are still so many unknowns that the administration is unsure which strategy is more likely to be used, although most planners have a strong preference for a major international component.

But that may prove unattainable, esp-ecially if the war becomes particularly messy or protracted and other countries are loath to bec-ome involved in a post-war Iraq.

The United States is in the early stages of probing world interest. During his weekend swing through Asia, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell approached Japan about contributing to postwar reconstruction and told reporters that the Japanese response had been positive.

The administration has held similar discussions with other nations, hoping to defray the steep costs.

But the scope of international involvement - and what countries might be included - could be heavily influenced by the outcome of a proposed UN resolution that would back the use of force to disarm Iraq, U.S. officials say.

If the resolution passes when it comes up for a vote in mid-March, then virtually any country willing to provide financial, humanitarian, reconstruction, technical or political assistance is likely to be welcomed.

But if the resolution is vetoed or doesn't win the required nine votes for passage, then the international involvement could well be at least initially limited to the countries that become part of the so-called "coalition of the willing" to back the United States in forcibly disarming Iraq.

Some administration officials have argued that any country wanting to participate in the potentially lucrative reconstruction process, notably oil sector development, should back the United States on the use of force to oust Saddam - effectively using post-war perks as either a financial incentive or political blackmail to win eventual backing.

But many officials, particularly in the State Department, intelligence community and the U.S. military, argue that the United States should welcome a wide international role even from countries that did not support Washington, both for the sake of Iraq and to ease the American burden.

"Regardless of the war, other nations will want a seat at the table when it comes time to rebuild. We might even have more leverage after the dirty work is done to point out that we should set aside differences about how we got there and look at the constructive goals we then all share," a State Department official said.

The two post-war plans differ mainly in the number of stages of the process: In the first, a two-stage scenario, Washington would be entirely responsible for orchestrating the transformation of Iraq.

In the other, a three-stage scenario, Washington would run the immediate post-war transition until an international arrangement takes over the longer process of overhauling Iraq. The final stage in both plans is the restoration of Iraqi rule.

The go-it-alone strategy, which envisions a prolonged first stage run by a U.S. civilian administrator - probably backed by hundreds of thousands of American troops to provide security and to keep Iraq's rival ethnic, religious and tribal factions from destabilising the country - would be significantly more difficult, U.S. planners say.

"There's going to be greater domestic and international pressure to ensure we've achieved our objectives," the State Depart-ment official said. "And we'll be the only ones there if it fails."

The second plan allows a more flexible and less costly process if the full international community is involved. Iraq will not only receive greater attention but an expectation that more parties have a stake in achieving a common goal.

"This option helps us hedge the risk and opens up the culpability and responsibility to the international community," a U.S. official said.