definitely don't you think? We didn't have terrorists then.... maybe the

mob... but no terrorists..."

First, I like how you pointed out that the "established US" (as we know it today, I presume) is very different from Iraq. However, what is the "established US" and the "unestablished US." I tend to think of the "established US" being the time after the Civil War, when the United States developed a strong centralized government able to maintain itself. Therefore, the "unestablished US" (that being the time between 1776 and 1865) is not all that different from Iraq.

Advertisement

Several times, the United States faced rebellious groups. Quite franky, the "mob" were an unorganized group of terrorists in the early republic. First and foremost were the Loyalists, those loyal to the British government during the American Revolution. They were exported to Canada immediately following the war. Secondly, you had radical anti-Federalists who wanted to take up arms against the government. It is said that the reason we have the "Right to Bear Arms" is because the anti-Federalists would have never signed the Constitution if there were not a way to overthrow a possible tyrantical government. Third, let us not forget Shay's Rebellion (1786-1787), the Whiskey Rebellion (1794), Fries's Rebellion (1799), the Dorr Rebellion (1841-1842), "Bleeding Kansas" (1855-1860), John Brown's Raid on Harper's Ferry (1859) and approximately 15 major riots during this time period. Finally, probably the second most important event in United States history, the sucession of the South from the Union brought about the question of the country's ability to maintain itself. These are all instances of severe instablity and outright rebellion within the United States. It took the United States 89 years before its Constitution and the power of the Federal government was solidified, centralized, and worked to the best of its ability as one united nation. Even though the Constitution "established" the Federal government, the United States remained a "shaky" government, maintained only by continuous compromises in the legislature to keep states from suceding and by being very careful to never push extreme issues, until 1865.

After several rebellions, riots, expulsions, and a civil war, the United States finally became one nation. We are asking Iraq to do all this in just four years? Also, in the United States it was always a two sided debate: North vs. South or Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists. There was never any room for a third party in United States history. With Iraq you have three sides: Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds; three groups of people that have never and will never like each other because of their political, cultural, and theological differences. At least the North and South had common ancestory and "mild" political differences; the Sunnis, Shiites, and the Kurds have little in common. The Sunnis and the Shiites have been fighting for 1,400 years over who should be the successor of Prophet Muhammad, which has eventually lead to theological and cultural differences over the centuries.

How can you force such a diverse group of people in Iraq get along on an equal basis? The United States remained ethnically White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, with power in the North and the South residing with this one group. In Iraq, you have a long history of one group oppressing the two others (similarly to the way the South oppressed the slaves and the way the North oppressed the free-blacks and the immigrants). It took the United States another 100 years after the Civil War for the oppressed groups to finally gain "equality" to the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant majority. Just think, the Civil Rights Movement and the election Robert Kennedy (since he was a Catholic) were all stages in the United States history to finally becoming "united." However, we are asking the Iraqis to accomplish all this in four years? It took us 231 years to do it and we still have not gotten it entirely right!

Jarred James Breaux

New Iberia