By By Matt G. Binanz

This summer I had the chance to visit Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. For those who have never taken an American History class, these towns were the sites of the first shots of the American Revolution. While wandering through the recreated buildings and walking the various trails, I learned things I never knew before. For instance, the American militia at Lexington had been up late drinking the night before the battle and ran out in front of the marching British army as a spontaneous protest. At Concord, the Americans mistook an accidental house headlines in the paper about irregular troops using guerrilla tactics to kill members of fire as an attempt to raze the village. They stormed a bridge guarded by the British. After the British withdrew, the colonists followed them for 16 miles, shooting at them from the woods and killing many.

All of that is a convenient history lesson, but what relevance does it have today? Well for the past year or so, we have read about an army currently in another people’s land. We are told the guerrillas or “insurgents” have little backing by the public and all that is needed is to seize them and their weapons. We are told they are using treacherous devices like improvised explosives that blow up the most modern military vehicles. This we are told is wrong-it goes against the customary rules of warfare. Further, we are shown pictures of the occupying army in its bases with people who represent the real citizens of this country. Obviously, you can tell I am referring to the U.S. forces in Iraq. However, these exact same terms can describe the American colonists in 1776.

The dramatized movie, The Patriot, was modeled on American guerrillas hiding in the South Carolina swamps and sneaking out to attack the British. In fact we learn the purpose of Paul Revere’s ride was to first warn John Hancock and John Adams to leave town in order to avoid capture by the British and then to ride to Concord in order to move military supplies out of the town. Is this any different than Iraqi insurgents who move their weapon caches and leaders out of towns, ahead of a US military sweep? Could one not say the 4,000 Americans hiding in the bushes while the fatigued British marched back to Boston are any different from Iraqis who target American military convoys? This is not to condone the Iraqi insurgency, for it is still wrong for anyone, American or Iraqi, to kill someone. Rather, this is to illustrate the point that people must adapt to changing conditions.

The British settlement of America was a world-changing event, as British protection allowed the American colonies to grow into a great nation. In that same line of thought, the American invasion of Iraq could be justified as providing the Iraqis a fresh opportunity at running their own nation. However, the problem is when one nation tries to tell its child how to act. For example, America wants democracy in Iraq, but many Iraqis might feel more comfortable and even prefer a theocratic state. The British preferred a parliamentary monarchy, but that did not work well long distance over an entire ocean, so America broke away to form a federal democracy. In fact, one could argue that the Iraqis have a better claim to being freedom fighters than the Americans did because they have suffered more than the Americans ever did. America’s main problem with Britain was economic, since it did not like having to pay taxes without representation or have Britain regulate its commerce. In Iraq, America has not only regulated the commerce, but has also arrested or killed those who opposed this regulation. In the American Revolution, the British treated captured Americans relatively well, for the era, considering there was no Hague or Geneva Convention. In contrast, America has sought out every method to avoid these basic conventions in order to mistreat captured Iraqis. Under the current American definition of an insurgent, England would have been justified in seizing random colonists on the grounds they were terrorists and then sending them to some third country to be tortured.

In short, I think it was a good idea to go into Iraq as it allowed a change of government that might never have occurred. However, this change has long been accomplished and it is now up to the Iraqis only to determine which form of government they prefer. Left to their own devices they may form a state hostile to the US, but that is their right just as it was America’s right to form a government hostile against England after the revolution. America was the first modern colony to rebel against its imperial home country, but America does not have a monopoly on revolutions and cannot dictate the form of government of new nations.