Clear understanding needed about U.S. role in 'new' Iraq

President Bush made it clear Tuesday night that the June 30 deadline for transferring sovereignty of Iraq to the Iraqi people is etched in stone. But the president also was adamant about the United States' continued involvement in that troubled land.
"... our commitment to the success and security of Iraq will not end on June 30," Bush said during a news conference in the White House. "On July 1 and beyond, our reconstruction assistance will continue, and our military commitment will continue. Having helped Iraqis establish a new government, coalition military forces will help Iraqis to protect their government from external aggression and internal subversion."
The American people should brace themselves for a long, costly campaign -- in terms of the lives of American soldiers and monetarily -- to bring democracy to a country that has been anything but peaceful since the American-led invasion in March 2003. The invasion resulted in the ouster -- and subsequent capture -- of murderous dictator Saddam Hussein.
The recent violence in Fallujah, Najaf (the Shiite holy city) and elsewhere is not a reassuring commentary on how well prepared the Iraqi people are for self-governance. April has become the deadliest month for the U.S. militarily, with at least 87 troops reported killed. In addition, more than 800 Iraqis have been killed this month.
Bush is right when he says that the United States cannot cut and run and that it has a responsibility to help establish a strong foundation for democracy. That said, the administration must not lose sight of the fact that getting the disparate ethnic and religious groups to embrace a constitution and a bill of rights, for example, is easier said than done.
Important questions
In standing firm on the June 30 deadline, the president hopes to reassure the Iraqis that the United States is not an occupying power and that their future is very much in their own hands. But it also raises two important questions the administration would do well to answer sooner rather than later: To whom will sovereignty be handed? What will happen should U.S. troops want to embark on some military mission and the interim government objects, or worse yet sides with the target of the mission?
Given what has been going on in Iraq in recent weeks and the growing opposition to the presence of American, British and other coalition forces, the administration should reassess its stance on involving the United Nations in the creation of a "new" Iraq. During his press conference Tuesday, Bush seemed to concede that the world organization's involvement is essential, but he also seemed to suggest that the United States will continue playing the leading role.
If anti-American sentiment keeps growing and the violence of the past couple of weeks increases, America may find itself with its back to the wall.
Before that day comes, Bush and his advisers would do well to let the United Nations and even NATO take the lead in defending Iraq from its enemies while Iraqis train as soldiers.