Or perhaps both. Ralph Peters has it exactly right. We have to completely overhaul our notions of national "legitimacy" and come up with some higher values than sovereignty when applied to tyrants.

When Peters is good, he's very, very good indeed.

Surely there are no insuperable barriers to having the United States act as Iraq's agent, holding Iraq's sovereignty and responsibilities "in escrow" until a properly chartered government can be organized. Granted, the term "agent" doesn't usually contemplate having a conqueror designate himself that for the conquered, but it's an American tradition. See also Germany and Japan, 1945.

I know it's going to seem petty, but the World Bank depends on U.S. contributions, and we ought to be pulling the plug on multilateral institutions that aren't doing us any good.

Ralph Peters nails it again. Those interested might do a search at LibertyForum between myself (under the pseudonym Oberon) and non-agression libertarian Randal prior to the liberation of Iraq. I held that the Treaty of Westphalia did not apply, in this case, because rather than a sovereign nation, Iraq was a captive territory.

Francis W. Porretto, what you describe is nearly identical to the UN Trusteeship Council which has now shut down. Basically the UN recognizes a Great Power's control of a nation, ex-colony or territory, until they are ready for independence. As long as UN involvement is kept to a minimum I would have no problems with reviving the idea.