What a difference six months makes. On May 1, 2003, the United States reached the status of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. It was put forth that we could just mop up the remaining inconveniences and prepare an exit strategy. Now that we are in the "postwar," things just aren't going as smoothly as hoped. The fact remains that this war is not over and much work needs to be done to ensure a viable Iraqi democracy that is neither a threat to its neighbors nor to the United States. To do this, the United States needs the help of Iraqis and the international community as well.

Before going further, it should be said that the decision to enter this war remains the correct one. However, if our handling of the transition to Iraqi democracy does not improve, some of our original basis for waging war may actually come true. Never mind the weapons of mass destruction that may or may not exist (or was it only programs?), but Iraq's link to terrorism was consistently suggested by the administration as a reason for war.

Unfortunately, the terror situation in Iraq now seems to be getting worse than it was before the beginning of the war. Steady attacks against U.S. soldiers by foreign terrorists or just by Iraqi insurgents (another administration flip-flop) threaten to derail the transitory occupation. Just this past Sunday, Iraqi terrorists downed an American helicopter, killing 15 U.S. soldiers.

The best possible solution to this problem would be for the formation of an Iraqi force that could seek and destroy the terrorists in their midst. It is very important that proper screening be done to ensure that the new members of this force are not guilty of previous transgressions against human rights. This would seem to eliminate members of the Republican Guard. The paramilitary force could be manned by former members of the Iraqi army and the police services.

The success of an Iraqi force against Iraqi terrorists would thereby enable greater power to be transferred to Iraqis. There is only so long that the Iraqi public will support an U.S. occupation, so this transition needs to occur. Fortunately, Paul Bremer -- U.S. administrator in Iraq -- has recently warmed to this idea.

One problem for Bush with the status quo is that the political cost of cleaning things up with the continued use of predominantly U.S. troops is very high. Extended troop deployments could weaken Bush's electoral support of a key constituency -- the troops and their families. Now that more National Guard units have been called up to replace active-duty troops in Iraq, Bush needs to be very careful to at least start to wind down the occupation.

One solution to alleviate the strain on the U.S. military would be to bring in combat-ready foreign troops. The best troops for the job would be the relatively well-trained and equipped forces of NATO. That's right -- it would be beneficial for French and German troops to join in and help the U.S. and U.K.-led coalition of the willing to establish a new regime of peace and prosperity. It seems ironic that President Bush's reelection chances can be greatly influenced by the snubbed powers of "Old Europe." It is quite apparent to see that a healthy situation in Iraq is much preferable to Bush's campaign than the current mess (this would benefit more than Mr. Bush, of course).

To do this, the U.S. would have to cede some control to the United Nations and obtain a Security Council mandate. This could greater facilitate the assumption of greater power by Iraqis themselves. Hopefully, this could also allow the U.S. to perhaps lessen the cost of rebuilding. The mess in Iraq must be addressed in large part by Iraqis themselves.

If problems occur in the future, our experience ignoring the United Nations could be used to step back in and assume greater control once more.