If anything good came out of this week’s bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, it is that it has spurred the United States to seek more international help in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq. Prior to the bombing, which killed at least 20 people, the Bush administration seemed resolute to do things on its own and there was little talk of broadening the international coalition now at work in Iraq. After the bombing, however, talk of seeking more help grew louder.

The fact that Secretary of State Colin Powell has asked even France and Germany, outspoken critics of the war long derided by the administration, for assistance is a positive step. It is also encouraging that the administration is now working with the U.N. to give that body a larger role in the peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts. Turning more control over to the international body will encourage countries reluctant to help a U.S.-run effort to now pitch in. It should also help to quell rising anti-American sentiments in the long run.

Prior to the bombing, the administration’s assessment of the 100 days since the fall of Baghdad was overly rosy. Those living with sporadic power, water and guerrilla attacks scarcely would have recognized the country described in the 24-page report. As the report makes clear, all that is now good in Iraq is due to American efforts. But in its eagerness to take credit for democratizing Iraq, the administration has slowed relief and rebuilding efforts by insisting that work be done by American companies or those from a select group of “friendly” countries, in other words not war critics such as Germany and France.

Asked by The Baltimore Sun why the administration continued to use American corporations to perform work that the United Nations and other groups could do more cheaply, the deputy administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development said private companies could respond more quickly than the bureaucracy-laden U.N. This may be true in principle, but with U.S. taxpayers footing the bill, and power, water and gasoline still in short supply in many parts of Iraq, it appears to be failing in practice.

The real reason the administration wants to maintain control is so that it can take credit. “This is taxpayers’ money,” said Frederick Schieck of U.S. AID. “There should be some recognition that resources of the U.S. government are making this happen.” The administration, however, should be cautious because if it wants credit, it will also get blame. In addition, if more countries and organizations are brought in to help in Iraq, the costs can be shared. In the Balkans and Afghanistan, for example, the United Nations was given a larger role in reconstruction in relief and U.S. taxpayers bore no more than a quarter of the cost.

U.S. taxpayers might also like to know what they’re paying for and how long it will last. The Bush administration, however, has kept Congress, and the American people, in the dark about the extent of that work. Military officials have said U.S. soldiers will remain in Iraq for two more years. The president recently said he would present a “well thought-out” estimate of the costs of rebuilding Iraq to Congress.

That estimate must be presented to lawmakers soon after they return from their summer recess next month. In the meantime, efforts to enlarge the U.N. role in Iraq should continue.