A "secretive Pentagon-led group is already far advanced in plans to unilaterally install a postwar regime dominated by Americans and Iraqi exiles," said The Washington Post editorial.

The regime would exclude "not only the United Nations but also European and Middle Eastern allies," and even the US "State Department's nominees," said the daily, adding that Pentagon wants to go "from military rule to an interim Iraqi government in 90 days."

"This narrow approach could compound the diplomatic damage of the war," and break US President George W. Bush's pledge "to seek the repair of alliances and of the United Nations after the war."

"Even a parting with Britain counld not be ruled out," warned the Post, which urged following British Prime Minister Tony Blair's proposal to convene a UN conference to decide the formation of a transitional government for Iraq.

In a separate article, The Washington Post also points out that the Pentagon is also "pressing ahead with plans to temporarily manage Iraq's oil industry after the war and to use the proceeds to rebuild the country," posing another serious clash with US allies.

Quoting diplomatic and oil industry sources, the Post said the US administration "intends to install a senior American oil executive to oversee Iraq's exploration and production ... former Shell Oil Co. chief executive Philip J. Carroll is the leading candidate to direct production."

"Iraqi experts now outside the country would be recruited to handle future oil sales," the daily added quoting industry sources.

As justification of its plan, the Post said, "the United States may claim a legal right as an occupying power to sell the oil for the benefit of Iraq, people close to the situation said."

United Nations and British officials, the daily said, maintain the United States lacks the legal authority to export Iraqi oil "even on an interim basis" without a new UN Security Council mandate."

The Wall Street Journal's editorial focuses on the cost of the the war and post-war occupation of Iraq, saying the bill ranges from 44 billion dollars to almost two trillion dollars "depending on length and intensity."

While the long term benefits of a more stable Middle East and lower oil prices would offset somewhat the cost, the Journal goes on to say that the real question is how does the cost of the war and its aftermath compare to "the main alternative to war -- continuing containment of (Iraqi President) Saddam" Hussein.

According to estimates by economists at the University of Chicago's business school, the Journal said, the cost of containment at some 19 billion dollars a year for 33 years would come to 380 billion plus the cost of US homeland security of some 630 billion dollars.

The figure of 19 billion is 50 percent more than the 13 billion a year the US has spent on troops since the Gulf War (without getting Saddam to bend to UN mandates). The 33-year period, the daily said, is an optimistic lifespan for a Saddam-like regime, considering the duration of the Soviet Union, North Korea and Cuba.

"Simply put, containment costs a lot more than war -- even if one doubles Mr. Bush's estimate to 120 billion dollars," The Wall Street Journal said.

SPACE.WIRE