Most of us believe we are edging closer each day to a major military confrontation in Iraq. Recent war protests both at home and around the world highlight the controversy this decision presents. On Wednesday [2.19.03], key Iraqi leaders from recognized groups who have opposed the regime of Saddam Hussein for decades announced their extreme dissatisfaction with current U.S. plans for a post-Saddam government in Iraq.

This is the mistake our nation made in Vietnam. What are we "fighting for" if the leaders of the post-Saddam period are now angry with us? It is critical we resolve these issues now, before we send our young Americans to spill their blood in this engagement. I ask you to seriously consider the comments I have included below.

Recognized Iraqi opposition groups includes the Kurdish Democratic Party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Iraqi National Congress and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, wrote an impassioned and reasoned editorial titled, "Iraq for the Iraqis" [Wall Street Journal (WSJ), A14, 2.19.03].

He stated, "...the proposed U.S. occupation and military administration of Iraq is unworkable and unwise. Unworkable, because it is predicated on keeping Saddam's existing structures of government, administration and security in place -- albeit under American officers... Unwise, because it will result in long-term damage to the U.S.-Iraq relationship and America's position in the region and beyond."

Chalabi provides some background for readers: The current U.S. plan proposed for Iraq calls for an American military governor to rule Iraq for up to two years. American officers would staff the top three levels of Iraqi government ministries with the rest of the structure remaining the same. Chalabi notes, "You cannot cut off the viper's head and leave the body festering. Unfortunately, the proposed U.S. plan would do just that."

Chalibi believes the U.S. proposal "is a recipe for disaster on two grounds: First, it puts Americans in the position of having to defend Baathists [remaining members of Saddam's political party]. Second, it forces American officers to make difficult decisions about Iraqi society and culture with very little knowledge." Chalibi provides these example, "will an American colonel at the Ministry of Education decide on the role of Islam in school curricula? Will America have a seat at OPEC and the Arab League, or the Islamic Conference?"

Chalibi notes "this is our job, not that of a foreign officer." He warns that "the U.S. does not need to handpick a successor to Saddam, nor does it need to predetermine every single step in the post-Saddam era. We expect the U.S. to make a full commitment to accepting the will of the Iraqi people and not fail us in our desire for justice."

In a related article, "The Iraqi Opposition's New Worry: The U.S." [WSJ, A12, 2.19.03], Farnaz Fassihi summarizes the positions held by other key Iraqi opposition groups. "Iraq's fractious opposition groups are agreed on one thing as they convene this week just miles from hostile Iraqi territory to plan a postwar government: They're against what they say are U.S. plans to occupy Iraq after toppling Saddam Hussein."

Some leaders say the U.S. postwar plans contradict President Bush's call for Western-style democracy in Iraq and feed Arab perceptions of the U.S. as an occupying force acting solely in its own interests. "Now I think the U.S. is only interested in oil and its economic partnership with Turkey," says Khasrow Shera, an official of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. Chalabi concludes, "This isn't a workable proposal. I'm very disappointed that our friend America is acting this way."

Again, I pose the question, why are we rushing into this war when there remain so many unanswered questions? Please think about this now.