WASHINGTON -- As a candidate for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush insisted that, if elected, he would not allow U.S. military forces to engage in "nation building."

No way would he follow President Bill Clinton's foray into nation building in the Balkans, Bush declared. Famous last words.

Now that we have blasted Iraq to save it (does that have a familiar ring?), Bush is in the business of nation building as U.S. military forces struggle to put that broken nation back together. Nation building in Iraq means not only getting the water and electrical supply going and arranging garbage collections.

It also means writing a new constitution and creating a government. In the meantime, U.S. troops are performing basic police functions like directing traffic.

The Bush administration is so eager to run Iraq that it insists on limiting the role of the United Nations to humanitarian relief. After all, who won the war?

Before the U.S.-led invasion, Iraq was a secular nation and westernized in many ways, under the iron rule of ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein.

It had one of the best water systems in the Middle East. The socialist regime provided free education and access to health care. But of course, Iraqis had none of the freedoms we cherish.

The job of restoring civil order as well as the needed services of electricity, water, and transportation for the Iraqi people is now falling to the president who said he detested nation building. He has tasked retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner to oversee the reconstruction of Iraq.

Garner met Tuesday in Iraq with Iraqis to discuss restoration of law and order and other services.

Remember when Republicans demanded that Clinton set an "exit strategy" for American troops to leave the Balkans? Well, the U.S. occupation of Iraq looks open-ended.

Bush's pledge to avoid nation building came during a debate with Democrat Al Gore at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., on Oct. 11, 2000. It was their second debate of the election campaign.

At that debate Bush recalled that the U.S. humanitarian mission in Somalia -- begun by his father, President George H.W. Bush -- had "changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong."

He was referring to the deaths of 18 U.S. Army rangers who were killed in Mogadishu on Oct. 3-4, 1993, after a gun battle. U.S. forces were soon withdrawn from Somalia.

"The mission was changed, and as a result, our nation paid a price," Bush continued. "And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building."

Bush declared that it was up to those who live in the liberated lands to rebuild them.

He added the Bush administration, if he was elected, would "absolutely not" indulge in nation planning. And so we launch another round of nation building in Iraq, even as the Bush administration struggles to rebuild a nation in Afghanistan.

Maybe he has forgotten, but Bush also pledged during the same debate to be "humble" in his foreign policy and not appear to be throwing our superpower weight around.

As the U.S. attack on Iraq shows, it's difficult being humble. When the United States could not get its way before the U.N. Security Council, Bush barged ahead on his own, careful to at least pay lip service to British Prime Minister Tony Blair so that the White House could always been seen to be acting in the name of a "coalition," such as it was.

No matter how the president's foreign policy is viewed by Americans or others around the world, the word "humble" couldn't possibly fit.

Back in 2000, when he was seeking office, it was a different Bush. During the Wake Forest debate, Bush declared: "It really depends upon how our nation conducts its foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, they'll respect us."

Those sound like words to live by.

(Helen Thomas can be reached at the e-mail address helent@hearstdc.com)