Defending the Democratic Domino Theory of the ME

Great Debates
1

We’re all familiar with the domino theory currently being hawked by neocons-a liberated Iraq will create a democratic ME. (Yes, I realize that this is an oversimplification.) But, saying doesn’t make it so. What’s the evidence that the domino theory’ll work?

from WMD in Iraq - Evidence and Implications**, (The Army War College paper that calls for a more specific and focused war on terrorists**):

So, what’s the counter, the rebuttal?

How will a liberated Iraq help make the ME democratic, (and what’s the evidence of this “how”)? And how will a democratic ME make the US safer, (and what’s the evidence of this “how”)?

2

Where are the neo-cons to defend the “democracy in the ME will deliver peace” ?

If by a miracle the ME does become democratic they will be so busy with political/party infighting which should make the US safer… conjecture of course. Real democracy…

They do say that democracies don't go to war, yet US citizens financed the IRA... hmm... maybe democracies in the ME won't change things so much then ?
3

The domino theory is an essential element the rationale for the invasion of Iraq presented by various neocons.
There should be some serious effort to explain and understand the mechanics that will effect the democratization of the ME and how this democratization will make the US safer.

How will a liberated Baghdad be so different from Cairo, and Islamabad?
Both Egypt and Pakistan are rife with Islamists, militant ones even.

What will keep Baghdad from becoming “Egypt on the Euphrates?”
What mechanisms will cause the spread of democratic reforms from Iraq outward to the rest of the region?

If this spread does indeed occur via whatever mechanisms, what will make the reformed ME any different than Egypt, Pakistan et al?

And most importantly, how will this make the US any safer?

While I’ve read almost as much as most Americans about the neocon vision of spreading the zone of democracy, I’ve yet to see any serious nuts and bolts discussion of mechanics of how this miracle will occur. I have hope that the SDMB GD’s the place to get the nitty gritty on the democratic domino theory for the ME. If you adhere to this theory, now’s the time, here’s your chance.

4

Is that paper really from the war college? When was it renamed the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace?

As to your question, I think the comparison to the dommino theory of 50 years ago have to ignore the methods by which democracies and communists come to power. “Vulnerability” to democracy means that people want to have power over their govenrments. “Vulnerability” to communism means that people are vulnerable to having such power taken from them or from those who have it. Also, I’m not at all certain that equal is the right word in either case. There are certainly gradients to be considered for both theories.

I am surprised that they consider the possibility of democracies falling to other forms of government a problem with democracy. This seems a little like complaining that crime is a possible problem with having police.

I am also very confused by the assertion that “non state” terrorism is more prevelant in democracies. Especially given your choice of the quoted sentence “(Nonstate terrorism was notable for its absence in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.)”. What can this possibly mean? Private terrorism is less in countries where government terrorism is the norm?

5

Umm Oops.
Coffee first. Coffee first. Coffee first.

Here’s the correct link
Bounding the Global War on Terrorism

6

While these comparisons could “ignore the methods by which democracies and communists come to power,” it’s not necessary for the comparison. Likelihood is just as functional of a word as vulnerable. “Vulnerable” is a hold over from the prior domino theory. There’re a host of conditions that do or don’t predispose a country toward different forms of governement. So far, the theory runs that the presence of a reformed Iraq will instigate similar changes in different countries. The differences among these countries imply that similar stimuli will produce different reactions.

I don’t think that it’s so much a complaint about democracies so much as it is a recognition that democracy isn’t a panacea. The reference to the study on terrorism is in this same vein. It’s a challenge to the idea that democratic reform will somehow insure the US’s safety from terrorism.
He’s saying, in effect, that just because the ME becomes democratically reformed it doesn’t automatically mean that terrorism will disapear or even that this reform will lead to friendly govs and be in our best interests as a nation.

7

Thanks.

But I think it is necessary for the comparison. There were significant cultural differences between Western Germany and eastern Europe. But when Communism collapsed Eastern Europe somehow chose to try democracy. Its not about vulnerability, its about how accessible the benifits of freedom are. That is, the mechanism which should allow democracy to be “exported” from Baghdad to Damascas is simply proximity.

Also, I don’t think democracy is a pancea. I’m at a disadvantage on some of the points in the paper because I did not see good references to advocates of the propositions he is attacking (I may have simply missed them). But I don’t think anyone is proposing that Democracy will automaitcally make Iraq our best friend. France is a good counter example. A better one than Nazi Germany BTW.

The differences between hostile democracies and friendly autocracies is one of American involvement. Presumably we would not need to impose democracy on countries hostile to the US. While we may have to (and have in the past) impose autocracy on even friendly nations.

8

Excellent questions, but I think that the answers lie less in mechanistic details than in the realization that the various incarnations of the domino theory have all been, more or less, vision things.
The president’s november speech before the National Endowment for Democracy is certainly couched in visionary terms. Here’s the answer to your first question:

And your second question:

The answers don’t look so good when translated into mechanistic terms:
•We believe that this is the way that it is
•We’re screwed if it’s not that way
But vision has never really been about mechanism.

9

Proximity’s not a machanism per se, not much more than mere existence is.
Why will Iraqi democracy have more effect o the region than Turkish, Jordanian and Israeli democracy, (not to mention the various nominal democracies in the region)? Turkey and Jordan are arguably proximate to Iraq, yet the signs of their proximity having this reformist effect on Iraq are hard to come by.

And how will democratic reform make the US safer? Particularly, if the will of the people is expressed and that will is hostile to the US?

I’m the most curious about these kinds of assertions: “Presumably we would not need to impose democracy on countries hostile to the US.”
We are having to impose democracy on a country hostile to the US now, how will this change?

ps
I’m off for the weekend. I will continue in a day or two or so. I’m not ignoring anyone.

10

Trouble is, we are foist on our own retard. “Democracy” is a lovely word, one of my personal favorites. But in the case of Iraq it carries certain dread implications, consequences that the Bushiviks would dearly love to avoid until at least November.

They are committed to a “federal” Iraq, one nation, under Allah, etc. The uncomfortable fact is that such an Iraq would be dominated by the Shia faction, who comprise some 60% of the population. Can there be any doubt that they would swiftly move to reverse the years of privilege enjoyed by the Sunni minority? And that the Sunni’s would be motivated to resist? By what means could they do so, if “democracy” is strictly adhered to? Filibuster?

The febrile dream of a federalized Iraqi democracy is comprised of equal parts fairy dust and happy thoughts. “Iraq” only existed as a state due to the iron hand of Saddam. Unity by shared terror. With Saddam gone there is no such entity as “Iraq”. It is not so much a state as a civil war awaiting its moment.

The Sh’ite Ayatollah’s position is entirely valid: if we mean democracy, we mean handing power over to the Shia. If we don’t mean democracy, what do we mean?

One suspects that the true goal of the Bushiviks is to establish order…any order…that will permit them to withdraw the soldiers in time for the October Re-elect Our Troops and Support Our President Rally. When (not if, when) Iraq comes unglued, we can shrug our shoulders and say “Well, we gave them democracy, but they fucked it up. Not our fault.”

11

We could very well mean a constitutionally representitve republic. There exist several models for how disperate groups can form a union. I agree with you that the Sh’ite Ayatollah’s position is dangerous. Its danger, however, lies more in our own misunderstanding of the workings of our own country than in any inherent “validity” of his position.

BTW, SimonX, removing Saddam is not the same thing as imposing democracy.

Also, I would suggest (in my admitted ignorance of the fine details of the trade relations of the region) that the examples of Jordan and Turkey have had an effect on parts of Iraq. Not enough to remove Saddam, but certainly enough to inspire some parts of the Iraqi population. Not everyone there is convinced that Islamic dictatorship is the way to go.

Look, the jury will not be in for several decades on Iraqi democracy. Personally I don’t think there is too much danger that this will turn into another Phillipines. But, you never know. Its always possible that Bush or a soon to be administration will see a popular Iraqi leader as dangerous and seek to remove him. Its possible (even probable in the short term) that general anti western sentiment will dominate Iraqi politics for some time. I would certainly be among the shocked if the first elected government suddenly turned into a Muslim Isreal. But there is a big difference between anti western sentiment and hostility towards western countries.

As you said, deomocracy is not a panacea. But it is certainly better than Saddam.

12

Is it? For whom? Keep in mind, I don’t intend to contradict you, merely to suggest that the matter is not so cut and dried as you purport.

It is entirely possible that the situation could degenerate into a civil war. Whether Saddam terrorizing the Iraqi people is less desireable than Iraqi’s terrorizing other Iraqis is too subtle for me, I fold.

And what of the Kurds, who have suffered at our hands so often. They know precisely what they want, they want a Kurdistan. So far, we have mollified them with vague promises of “autonomy”, but, sooner or later, the questions will arise. Are they to be protected by a Kurdish army, or an Iraqi army? Is the oil beneath thier feet Kurdish oil, or Iraqi oil? What possible reason can we offer them to place thier loyalty and trust in Arab Shia? (Perhaps we might send Henry Kissinger to advise them, I’m sure they would love to get thier hands on…uh, benefit from his sage advice.)

If the Kurds do get real indepenence, with thier own revenue and thier own armed forces, can anyone doubt that thier first thought will be the plight of thier countrymen under Turkish rule? And when (not if, when) they support Kurdish seperatism, how long until Turkey, our loyal ally, demands that we come to thier aid against “terrorism”?

13

Agreed. A group of Sunnis killing Shiites is no better than Saddam. But that is not the only choice we are left with. I’m not saying that democratic reforms are ensured. I’m not saying that the future peace and prosperity of the Iraqi people is now fixed. I am only saying that now they have the option of instituting a democratic government. That is the difference between Pre Saddam and Post Saddam. There is now a third choice to the problem you suggested. In my opinion, this makes the situation better for everyone.

So we are clear, I did not mean to make the situation in MENA or Iraq in particular seem cut and dried. They have problems to address that would, I venture, make our founding fathers cringe. And I have not seen much evidence that they have a group of popularly supported statesmen capable of solving them. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Such a group might very well exist somewhere in Iraq. My only point is that if they do then Iraq will indeed be better off than before. This possibility is what makes things better now than they were a couple years ago.

14

I’m sorry, but this whole “domino effect” theory is too ludicrous to even start commenting on it.

I see here once again a demonstration of the conviction that the term “Middle East” is taken for a synonime for “One Identical Soup served on different plates that have One Fabrication Serial Number in common”.
This is exactly what the retarded US president and government had in mind and still try to sell as “good honest motivation ground” (read: lunatical greedy murdering arrogance) to invade and occupy a sovereign nation. They had no clue and still have no clue. But they persist in their arrogance that they “need” to impose their “democracy” on others.

Surprise: What is “democratic” for US’ers isn’t necessary what others see as such. Cold blooded Capitalism US style can never be "democracy"to begin with. And then we don’t even talk about all the rest that so urgently needs to be imposed

I’m sorry, but if you are not capable to see for yourself the lunatical arrogance that is already exposed by using the word “impose”, when talking about people in other nations you have nothing to do with in the first place, then I don’t know how your brains function.

As for Iraq: I’m afraid the words of the Lunatical Invaders become more and more true:

You ain’t seen nothing yet.

All the etnical, religious, tribal and cultural differences are surfacing more and more by the day providing for one of the most explosive coctails one can imagine.
(And yes, as is said here already: the Kurds once again will be victim of false promises and treason.)

But you may dream further about “domino effect” if you like. It is very cosy to have such arrogant dreams of imposing your ways on others when you are very safely far away from where the bloodshed the US instigates and entertains actually happens.

Salaam. A

15

You may have a point about the US imposing democracy on Iraq, but how would you characterize the government of Saddam? Was it “chosen” by the Iraqi people? I would argue that the new government will be, at worst, no less legitimate than the previous. And at best, a hell of a lot more.

16

I would like to point out that the “Democratization of the Middle East” is not a Neocon position. It’s a position held by a wide range of people. Two of the biggest proponents of this theory are Fareed Zakaria and Thomas Friedman. Both of them are moderates - Zakaria a moderate Republican, and Friedman a moderate Democrat. Both are taken very seriously in foreign policy circles, and Friedman has a couple of Pulitzer prizes for his Middle East commentary.

Here’s an interesting dialog from this week’s Slate magazine: Liberal Hawks Reconsider the Iraq War. The formatting seems screwed up for me right now, though.

17

A democratic Iraq will only result in more trouble for us. Local clerics will gain power, and it will turn into an America-hating theocrcy (like Iran in the early years of the Ayatolah).

18

Some things need to be pointed out: firstly, this is not “the War College” speaking. It is one individual, a visiting instructor IIRC, speaking for himself.

Secondly, the idea of Democracy as a universal human value is not a component for the plan so much as it is an axiom. There is a fundamental assumption that “democracy” (defined broadly) is both morally and pragmatically superior to all other known forms of government, and that fundamentally all peoples everywhere desire it. If you don’t pretty much agree with that, there’s no way you’ll buy the plan. Rightly or wrongly, most people in the US do and always have (its the same axiom in the Declaration of Independance); which makes the plan an easy sell politically.

Finally, and the reason I’m willing to buy into the grand neocon plan: at least they have one.

I have seen it articulated clearly and at length. It is grand enough in scope to privode a framework within which all other decisons can be made. It is flexible in its details. It accords with my conviction that our enemy is not a specific group of individuals, but a philosophy and a body of belief that animates individuals and exerts influence in many countries; and that it arises from a specific of cultural/religious environment, and that our fundamental task is to change that environment.

It has plenty of problems. It is overly ambitious and very long-term and there’s a lot that can go wrong. It may indeed backfire and make things worse. It’s pissing off many traditional allies. My biggest problem with it is that I think democracy must take root, in the fertile soil of a liberal society. Just giving elections to people who have no experience of free speech, free markets, limited government, independant judiciary, etc. is dubious at best (cf. Russia) But the “domino theory” has the overriding virtue that if they’re right, it would solve the problem.

I have not seen anything that is to my mind, a credible alternative. What I have seen are small-scale plans that center on wishful thinking: that if we gave more foreign aid, or downsized our military, or stopped exporting bad cinema, everything would change; imagining that the UN is either “on our side” or politically neutral and that we should trust their judgement; that if there was a Palestinian state, all enmity toward the west would cease; above all that if we “give them what they want,” that would solve something.
Mostly, I have seen suggestions that imply that it is time to get over 9/11, that this needs be treated as a legal or police matter, that it’s time to get back to the way things were. Sorry, but to me, it’s war.

I’m open to any plan that ends with “and that’s how Radical Islam will cease to exist.” I’m unwilling to consider any plan that doesn’t. So far, I’ve only heard one plan.

19

I’m sorry, but what you call “radical Islam” -whatever you want to cover under such a cheap-worded umbrella- shall not “seize to exist” any more as “radical Christianity” (fill names in at will) or “radical Judaism” (fill inn “Zionism” to begin with)or “radical Hinduism” or whatever that can be “radical” and used for persoanl and/or political goals.

What is happening now however is that these unwanted, unwished and in some cases instigating to violence elements in Islamic societies continiously get gifts from the USA to help them recruting.

For this, and of course also for all the support by blindfolded ignorant arrogant US’ers this gets, I Thank You Very Much. Personally. Very sincere.

Salaam. A

20

furt: You summarized my position pretty much exactly. I don’t know of anyone else offering an alternative that makes any sense. Empty pleas for ‘multilateralism’ ring pretty hollow in my ears. First, I don’t see how that’s much of an improvement, and second is presupposes that if only the U.S. didn’t have that cowboy Bush in charge, the world would hold hands and sing kumbaya. To me, it seems rather obvious that countries like France and Russia are persuing their own interests, and would do so regardless of who the President was. And France has made it pretty clear that it is trying to set itself up as a power center in the EU, which it sees as a check on the power of the U.S.

As for the middle east, I haven’t seen any other credible plans for solving the problem. The critics of Bush just keep harping on how he should ‘get Osama’. As if he wasn’t trying already. And also they seem to think that this whole war is “The U.S. against Osama Bin Laden”, when in fact Bin Laden is simply the most well known of a whole bunch of people who are big, big trouble. If they think that once Bin Laden is dead suddenly radical Islam will fade away, they’re crazy.

The only way to win the war is to stop the conditions that create people who love killing Americans more than they love their own lives. You have to give them something to live for. That means the Middle East has to be democratized, and that was *never going to happen as long as Saddam was in power. Getting rid of him may not immediately cause the dominos to fall, but it damned sure got rid of a major roadblock towards achieving the ultimate goal.

Until the opponents of war start providing credible alternatives that have the backing of some serious foreign policy experts, their criticisms are going to carry much less weight.