An anecdote was recently mentioned in George Will's latest article about whether the ISG report is at all related to the reality of affairs in Iraq. Rajiv Chandrasekaran, when being escorted by his driver, found out that the man behind the wheel had a wanton disregard towards the rules of the road as codified by the CPA.  Most assuredly baffled by this cavalier attitude, Chandrasekaran inquired why be so reckless to which the driver replied, "Mr. Rajiv, democracy is wonderful. Now we can do whatever we want." This belief is quite predominant in a nation that is ponderously plodding along the path towards self-government and stability; but Iraqis are hardly alone in interpreting freedom as an exercise in self-gratification. Indeed, such notions of unabridged freedom are typical of nations that are new to republican government--including our own.
              When John Adams, having returned from the continental congress, was greeted with an unpleasant encounter back in Braintree. He was accosted by a town ne'er do well who often ran afoul of the law. "As soon as he saw me his first salutation to me was: 'Oh Mr. Adams, what great things you and your colleagues have done for us! We can never be grateful enough for you. There are no courts of justice now in this province, I hope there will never be another!'" This could not have disconcerted John Adams, who was a consummate lawyer and an astute student of government, more. "Are these the sentiments of such a people? And how many of them are there in the country?...If the power of the country should get into such hands, and there is a great danger that it will, to what purpose have we sacrificed our time, health, and everything else?" Americans have stridently been asking this selfsame question that Adams posed over two hundred years ago about the Iraqis reluctance to appropriately embrace freedom. It is just the opposite, however: they embrace it all too much.
              Like the deadbeat horse jockey --"the reason there was for these melancholy reflections"--who confronted Adams, Iraqis have little allegiance towards their nascent government because they possibly do not feel beholden to any authority at all. It is an overreaction--justified, maybe; understandable, definitely--to the absence of Saddam's Hussein's brutal dictatorship. These sentiments are perilous because Iraqis, then, feel no responsibility for rebuilding their nation and mending the wounds of sectarianism. Yet, again we see the same phenomenon arising in post-revolutionary America. Under the weak Articles of Confederation, which adhered closely to the principles of states rights, many debtor uprisings sprung up and state legislation was thrown into turmoil as members enacted laws solely to their benefit.  The present Iraqi has similarities with the past Americans, who had largely personal, not continental aspirations. So what is the solution?
               It is evident that no easy answers can be obtained since putting one's trust in a federal government requires a subordination of one's self interest to the nation's--a task difficult in any era. But America managed to tame sectarianism with the reasoning of the federalists and men like John Adams, who asserted the government could only be successful if powers were set against one another (i.e checks and balances). What Iraq is currently going through, though distressing, is nothing new under the sun and America experienced something similar. However, those who sit in the Iraqi government need to convince their people of the need for reasonable democratic policy and conduct themselves according to the principles of federalism. Along with a strong army to purge extremism, Iraq also requires an intellectual discussion about the principles of government that will suit their nation so that the inhabitants become more willing to fight for a tempered freedom. Iraq ultimately needs to achieve a balance, a respect for authority and the nation that acts as a counterpoise to the idea of unbounded freedom that is already entrenched.