With hundreds of billions of dollars being directed to the United States' operation in Iraq and rebuilding of that country, Americans would have been naïve to think that there would be no questionable spending or money distribution.

Even now, nearly two years after U.S. military operations in Iraq began, it continues to be impossible to monitor every dollar because the country remains in such disarray and upheaval.

However, it is right to ponder whether, in at least some instances, haste resulted in unnecessary waste. That question takes on a greater significance now that President George W. Bush is calling for so many domestic spending cuts while asking for $80 billion more for Iraq.

The logical point to be made is that the president's domestic-cut proposals would not have to be so deep - and the president would be asking for less additional money for Iraq - if there had been tighter controls on the money already sent there.

That U.S. officials in postwar Iraq made cash payments around Baghdad from a pickup truck and without accepted control safeguards was a situation ripe for abuse. That the money situation was so chaotic that U.S. officials paid a contractor by stuffing $2 million worth of crisp bills into his gunnysack raises the issue of whether this nation's taxpayers, in the future, will be billed again for payments already made.

The lack of official payment records makes that a possibility.

An inspector general's report concludes that the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation government, transferred nearly $9 billion to Iraqi government ministries without any financial controls. That money was designated for humanitarian needs, economic reconstruction, repair of facilities, disarmament and civil administration.

How much of that money reached its targeted destination will never be known.

Going into the Iraqi mission, U.S. officials understood that they faced a daunting financial challenge; Iraq lacked a functioning banking system, through which a more orderly transfer of money could have taken place.

So, care should be taken not to scar the face of the Provisional Authority too deeply.

However, it remains open to question whether the money task could have been handled with fewer opportunities for waste if better financial planning and controls had been a priority before the start of the U.S. military offensive and during the time before the Provisional Authority was able to move in and begin functioning.

A former CPA official, Frank Willis, who served at the State and Transportation departments during the Reagan administration, described the situation as "in sum: inexperienced officials, fear of decision-making, lack of communications, minimal security, no banks, and lots of money to spread around. This chaos I have referred to as a 'Wild West.' "

Americans concerned about this nation's spending practices, including the amount of money going to Iraq, have the right to demand better stewardship of their money, even under such difficult circumstances. They cannot be completely consoled by the explanation of L. Paul Bremer III, who served as CPA administrator, that Iraq's economy was "dead in the water" and the priority "was to get the economy going."

Hopefully what people of this country are now hearing is not just the beginning of a scenario much more troubling.