Iraq's US civilian administrator Paul Bremer echoed what officials in Washington have said for weeks, when he emphasized on US television that military planners have put together a substantial multilateral force on the ground in Iraq.

"There are 19 other countries already on the ground there, working under our command," he told Fox television. "We have a very international force."

Bremer acknowledged later on NBC that those countries combined have sent about 13,000 troops, compared to some 150,000 US troops in Iraq.

"We are the world's great power right now, and with great power goes great responsibility," Bremer said, when pressed on allowing more foreign troops. "We have the fundamental responsibility now for winning a peace in Iraq, and we're going to do that."

Bremer was reluctant to give his blessing to a formal United Nations-led military contigent in Iraq.

"It's hard to see how the United Nations can play itself a military role," he said on Fox.

"For the time being, all of the military forces are, and I think should, remain under American command."

Top US officials have sent conflicting signals on the issue of burden sharing in Iraq, insisting at times that Britain and France -- which opposed the US-led war -- have been asked to help in the postwar peacekeeping effort, but at other times saying they were not certain that a request has been made.

The failure to give an unambiguous plea for assistance drew a sharp rebuke Sunday from Senator Joseph Biden, one of the most vocal proponents of internationalizing forces in Iraq.

"We have to go to the rest of the world," Biden, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told NBC television.

"We have to go back to the UN, get a resolution giving the Europeans and others the color of authority within their constituencies to be able to go in and provide money and troops," said the Democrat from US state of Delaware.

"What are we saying? We went in, we won ... and now we're saying, "Because you were wrong, we're not going to let ... the French or the Germans or the Europeans or anyone help us in there?"

"That is foolish," said Biden.

His view apparently is shared by many, if not most, of his Senate colleagues. The US Senate voted unanimously ten days ago to call on the White House to consider requesting NATO and UN troops in Iraq -- similar to past NATO troop deployments in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo.

However, several key countries -- including France, Germany, India, Pakistan and Russia -- have said they would not contribute troops to the mission without a specific UN mandate.

Critics have said they are baffled by Washington's unwillingness to ask for help. The United States has grown increasingly frustrated at the difficulties it is facing in securing contributions to the stabilization force, particularly as its own troops endure deadly attacks almost daily from Saddam Hussein loyalists and are suffering from morale problems.

Adding to the urgency is the mounting cost of the war, now estimated by US military officials to be around one billion dollars per week -- double the pre-war White House projections.

The Los Angeles Times on Sunday became the latest influential newspaper to add its voice to the fray in support of multilater forces in Iraq.

"Without major help from the UN and from other nations, the US could end up stationing more than 100,000 vulnerable troops in a hostile land for years longer than planned and at enormous cost, in blood and treasure."

On Friday, the United States said it was willing to consider a new UN mandate for an international stabilization force in Iraq to increase participation from wary nations, but stressed there was already existing authority for the operation.

"We're open to the prospect and we are talking about it with other people," US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.

WAR.WIRE