Almost seven months ago, Michael Moore stepped up to the microphone at the 75th Annual Academy Awards to accept his award for Best Documentary. Instead of rambling off the standard laundry list of thank-yous, he took the opportunity to voice his opinion on the war just beginning in Iraq. He asserted that we live in "fictitious times" when a "fictitious president" can lead us to war for "fictitious reasons." Moore was booed, and in the days following the Oscars, criticism and praise of his short speech was everywhere. People booed because they disagreed not only with where he was expressing his beliefs, but what his beliefs consisted of. Moore had no way of knowing how the situation in Iraq would unfold, but in retrospect, one can't help but wonder -- was he right?

It's too late for pacifists and protesters to convince the government that attacking Iraq is a bad idea. It has already happened, and we're now facing another stage of confusion and unrest in America. Where are the weapons of mass destruction we were sure existed? Plans for Operation Iraqi Freedom advanced quickly without waiting for more international support or the United Nations' backing. Whether you believed that Iraq and their speculated weapons posed a threat before the war, you can't help but question now if the Bush administration distorted intelligence to promote their own agenda. We're six months into the occupation of Iraq, and nothing that could be classified as a weapon of mass destruction has been found. At this point, we better cross our fingers. Our domestic and international credibility is at stake.

From the very beginning, it was obvious that any reconstruction plan would be lengthy and costly. The debate came into the picture over whether the risk and cost of postwar restoration would be less than that of allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power.

There is no way to know what would have happened if the United States hadn't taken action, and it's too soon to evaluate just what the total cost of this conflict will be for America. One thing is definite -- the expenditure will be much less devastating if the United States seeks more help from the UN and other countries.

Thus far in post-war Iraq, the United States has insisted on completely controlling Iraq's reconstruction and transition to democracy. They have, however, recently asked the United Nations for help.

Not surprisingly, the United Nations is not as willing to help reconstruction efforts working below the United States as they would be if they were allowed to lead the mission. The undertaking is only hurt by not sharing leadership responsibilities.

Bush recently asked for $87 billion to further support our efforts in Iraq. Twenty billion dollars of it will go straight to rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure.

Most of the rest of it will go toward military operation. This enormous bill will surely grow as things progress and more problems and surprises arise, but the weight of the entire price tag doesn't need to fall on U.S. shoulders.

Originally, the White House expected Iraq to be able to pay its own reconstruction bill through profits of their oil industry.

However, it has recently been discovered that the administration highly overestimated the value and condition of the oil fields in Iraq, as they suffered greatly from the attacks and previous conditions under Hussein. Pulling our troops out of Iraq right now is not an option.

It would only aid the disdain toward U.S. actions.

There would be a lot more support, however, if the United Nations were able to step in and ultimately come up with a plan incorporating more nations' troops and assistance. This would include taking a big chunk off of the tab we're quickly accumulating.

Another cause for disagreement is how the United States is handling the changeover of the Iraqi government. Besides the foreign dispute over how the situation should be handled, internal resistance is growing as well. Just last week, a group of Shias in Iraq led by Muqtada al-Sadr announced they were running as an alternative form of government from the U.S. appointed council.

They want it to be left up to the Iraqi people to choose which they prefer, challenging the United States' assertion of establishing a democracy.

The presence of U.S. control in Iraq has already accomplished a new currency system replacing the one with Saddam's face on the bills. They also have helped establish an independent commercial bank, encouraging foreign investment, and are working closely with Iraqi leaders to prepare a draft constitution and move toward the free elections Sadr is hoping for.

But they have yet to give any sort of timetable for the occupation or the transition over to the Iraqi people, and there seems to be no signs of it anywhere in the near future.

The condition of Iraq that has come about as a result of the American occupation needs to be justified. The Pentagon and the Bush administration both need to admit their faults. Admit that, in fact, they weren't so sure about the weapons of mass destruction and their exact locations. Give up their dominant control of postwar Iraq and let other countries help, being open-minded to their opinions of what might work better.

In the meantime, there are plenty of domestic problems the attention, energy and excessive funding could go toward.