Rising death toll in Iraq shows war hasn't ended

Three months after President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and reveled in the adulation of the aircraft carrier's officers and crew for America's victory in Iraq, the chief of U.S. Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid, publicly acknowledged Thursday what White House won't: The situation in Iraq is far from stable.
Indeed, even while Abizaid was talking about the security threat posed by terrorists, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sought to downplay the urgency of the situation. Rumsfeld even seemed to gloss over the seriousness of Tuesday's bombing of the United Nation's headquarters in Baghdad, which killed at least 23 people and wounded more than 100.
"Terrorist activity has been going on in our world for a long time," the defense secretary said. "It is going on today. There is hardly a month that goes by where there's not some relatively significant terrorist act that occurs somewhere."
The administration's refusal to face the reality that is Iraq today is troubling and dangerous. As we noted in this space in June, it's time the president leveled with the American people -- especially in light of a warning from a top military official that the United States will have to remain in Iraq for an extended period of time and that an occupation force of at least 200,000 will be needed.
With the almost daily attacks on American soldiers and the rising death toll, it is evident that the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the killings of his sons and the capture of his former confidantes have not resulted in the transition to peace and democracy that the Bush administration touted.
Occupying forces
The United States and Britain are being viewed by many in the Arab world as occupying forces instead of liberators, and that has given rise to terrorist groups in and out of Iraq. There is only one way to change this attitude and that is by having the United Nations sponsor the peacekeeping force and coordinate the rebuilding effort.
Bush has thus far refused to consider handing over authority in Iraq to the United Nations. He also continues to insist that there is no need to increase the troop strength.
We believe the administration should rethink that position in light of this week's bombing.
Apart from the political imperative of having the seal of approval of the world organization for what the United States and Britain are attempting to accomplish in Iraq, there is another reason why it is important to involve as many democratic nations as possible in the stabilization and reconstruction of the country: money.
If the United States and Britain continue to insist that they will make all the major decisions, including the letting of contracts, then other nations whose companies are hoping to get a piece of the pie will be unlikely to offer assistance in peacekeeping, which has become a drain on the U.S. treasury. The risks being faced every day by American soldiers far outweigh any financial benefits to American companies.
The time has come to cut our losses -- by turning over the governance of that troubled, crippled country to the United Nations.