Dear Editor,In response to Dusin Powell’s letter, “Iraq War shares similarities with the Civil War,” in the Dec. 7 issue of the East Tennessean, I would like to note some of the differences between these two wars.

The issue of who won is not what stands out to me when making a comparison of these events. Rather, the reasoning behind the wars and the justification of America’s actions.

First, the Civil War began as a Northern effort to preserve the Union, not to liberate American slaves.

In this light, the Civil War was justified in that the North was warring with members of the same country, not imposing themselves on another country or culture.

The Iraq War, however, appears to be an attempt by the U.S. to directly influence the Iraqi government and its people.

Though the Iraqi people were obviously being oppressed by their government and help was needed, I do not feel like it is America’s place to intrude on the matters of another country. Some alternative method of assistance would be more justified to help the Iraqi people. Understand that the American troops have my full support and I respect their bravery and persistence in everything they do, but I am questioning whether or not we are justified as a country in our actions.

We’ve seen how important liberation can be in our own course of history, but I do not believe it is our right as a country to liberate those outside of our territory.

-Hannah Maples

Author