The Democratic Domino Theory Revisited

Great Debates
1

Despite the revisionist insistience of some that “it was WMD, period,” many of those who supported US intervention did so under the rationale that overthrowing Saddam and replacing him with a democracy would destabilise other nations in the region … and that such destabilisation would be a good thing, given the autocratic status quo.

This was discussed on the boards in numerous threads, includingthis one, in which PatriotX (nee SimonX) invited all comers to defend the Bush administration’s idea of Spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. In that thread, I suggested that

This was not my own idea by any means; rather it was my synopsis of the “Neo-con agenda” as I understood and supported it. This plan was of course roundly mocked on these boards, in numerous threads, by numerous people; mostly the reliable leftist/anti-Bush club, but also some conservatives and libertarians.

Well.

as Mark Steyn puts it “In the space of a month, the Iraq election has become the prism through which all other events in the region are seen.”

Iraqis march in the street, chanting “No to Wahhabism”

Lebanon

Egypt

Syria

and Palestinians protesting** against** the death of Israelis

Of course it’s still soon, and of course things could still take a turn for the worse. And of course there are those who would argue that no matter if infinite good were to come of it, military action without UN approval is always a bad thing, because procedure is more important than performance. That’s a logically defensible (if foolish) position, but it’s outside the scope of this thread. And this is certainly not an “I told you so” thread; I was never quite an enthusiasticsupporter of the war, as the thread linked above indicates.

But some who have been anti-Bush are already seeing a real change here.

Have the events of this week made anyone reconsider the viability of the Domino Theory? Does anyone seriously want to argue that all of this would have happened without Iraq, or (far more plausibly) that these are not the harbingers of real reform?

2

While positive, I don’t think we can make any real judgements for another year or two, minimum.

3

Its still too early to tell. If it all works out the way you say I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong. However, at this time I still think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. My own opinion is that Afghanistan already had the effect of a wake up call to the ME and others, and that the US would have been better served concentrating our resources and efforts there.

If Iran, who I always saw as a real and serious threat had they tried to play the games they have played the US would be in a much stronger position (militarily and from an international diplomacy perspective) to do something about it…and Iran has at least as much potential as Iraq to become a ‘model’ nation (as opposed to poor Afghanistan without any real resources or infrastructure). The US would be in a much more flexable strategic position right now to deal with Iran, Syria or even North Korea from strength (again, military, economic AND political strength) if we had not invaded Iraq when and how we did…or if we had limited ourselfs to simply bombing Saddam’s infrastructure and hammering any military facilities we could from a distance if we needed to do anything at all.

Iraq was contained IMO, and while I DO think the Iraqi people will be much better off in the long run (hell, even with the insurgency I think they are better off today than they were during Saddam’s reign), and I realize that continued sanctions or bombing raids by the US would have meant more hardship for the Iraqi people, I don’t see why the US had to do what it did there…I think it hurt us more than it helped us.

Time will tell I suppose, and I agree that, even though I think it was a mistake, its POSSIBLE that the invasion of Iraq might have a profound effect on the region…and for the better too.

-XT

4

I’m wondering if furt has a videotape of Colin Powell’s UN presentation where he didn’t go on for an hour about WMDs, mobile chemical plants, and remote-controlled anthrax-spraying drones.

The only “revisionist insistence” I see so far is in the OP.

5

Gotta start with a quibble. A small matter, but that’s the trouble with quibbles…

The “domino theory” can be closely related to entropy: the domino’s fall down. I don’t know any variety of that theory that proposes the fallen dominos suddenly standing up.

Then, of course, there’s a couple of problems with your phrasing. This gem, for instance…

I don’t know of anyone, offhand, for whom this was the crucial issue as regards Iraq. I suppose there are such, but if that isn’t the central argument, why are you bringing it up?

Of course, you do touch upon the Bushiviks serious problem with communicating their concerns. We are now given to understand that a campaign to free the ME people from authoritarianism was the real reason for the Iraqi invasion. If only they had said so plainly, rather than going on and on about “mushroom clouds”, and “vast stockpiles”. So few of us are sophisticated enough to understand that these phrases refer explicitly to a campaign for democracy. In our ignorance, we thought they were talking about weapons. Silly us!

And how does this splendid campaign for freedom impact upon our allies? Especially our stalwart and true-blue buddy Pakistan. Of all the military dictatorships in the world, they stand in the very front rank of those committed to democracy and freedom for everybody else. Just ahead of Uzbekistan.

And wasn’t there a democratic revolution in the ME just a while ago? Where they overthrew an autocratic dictator, and rushed headlong into free elections? How did that go, now that we’re on the subject?

And why would we be inclined to credit such a democratic movement to GeeDubya? Unintended consequences are just that, nothing more. If I fling a bowling ball from my apartment window and it lands on the head of a fleeing mugger, I ain’t Batman. And if a man playing five card draw bets his home, his wife, his children and one of his kidneys that he can draw three cards to a straight flush, and he does so, he is no less a fool.

Perhaps that should be the next Pubbie campaign slogan: God must love us, 'cause even when we totally fuck it up, we come out smelling like a rose.

And finally, the issue of relative value. I’d be pleased to have free elections in Iraq, or Syria, or even Kuwait (say, how’s that bastion of freedom and democracy coming along since we saved their bacon? Advancing into freedom, are they?..). I’d be willing to donate $100. Maybe do Meatless Fridays for a year. Some sort of sacrifice commensurate with the cause.

But not my son. Nor yours.

6

I agree with pretty much everything xtisme wrote, except that I was a supporter for the Iraq invasion when it occurred because I believed the claims that Iraq had WMD’s and felt that created a need for military action.

I also think it’s still to early to predict how things will turn out in Iraq. There are hopeful signs like the relative success of the elections and growing international support. But there are also continuing causes for concern; the insurgency is increasing not going away, the economy is still a basketcase, Iranian influence is growing, etc. What the situation needs now is patience, compromise, tolerance, flexibility, and a depth of knowledge. Unfortunately, these are not virtues I associate with our present administration.

7

:dubious: furt, I’m sure you know very well that correlation is not causation and post hoc is not evidence of propter hoc. What causal connection do you see between the Iraq War and pro-democracy developments in other ME countries? What proof is there that these things would not be happening if Hussein still ruled Iraq?

8

Why not just ask noted anti-American Walid Jumblatt?

9

The part in ellipses is “I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.”

10

Poppycock. Thousands of hamsters have been killed by arguments that even if the results were objectively good (e.g. removing SH), US intervention was wrong on it’s face because it was not duly authorized or “legal.” IOW, some have said that American Unilateralism, whatever short-term good it might do, would in the long run be a undermine a peaceful world order.

Obviously, this was not everyone’s position who opposed the war; but I did not say it was. If the shoe doesn’t fit …

11

Aw, shit. Thanks, Captain. I left that out to keep the sig to four lines and totally forgot I redacted the part most relevant to this discussion.

12

Which relates how, exactly?

As has been discussed on these boards many times, the WMD argument was picked for political salability, and it did turn out to have been a huge error. But anyone who was paying attention knew all along that there was a much larger agenda at work.

[

](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html)

In five minute’s looking, here’s a prewarcite or two from both sides of the fence.

And note that the Times acknowledged that “The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances. It boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy at a time when few in the West thought it had any realistic chance.”

13

You know, if democracy breaks out and becomes pandemic in the Middle East, I couldn’t be happier. And if some foresighted individuals like the OP supported the Iraq War because they foresaw it leading to widespread democracy, more power to them. (Under other circumstances, I’d ask for a cite, to prevent a postdated claim to prophetic knowledge, but I’ll pass on that.)

But the key point here is that I am a citizen of a country whose political leaders are accountable to the electorate, and obliged to tell them as much of the truth as is consonant with national security. I am not claiming that “the people have the right to know” information that could only have been gained by a deep-cover agent in Teheran or Pyongyang, whose cover would be blown by it. I am claiming that what is told the American people should be the truth, as much as is safe to tell at a given time.

The government represented that the Hussein regime had ties to Al-Qaeda, which have been conspicuously absent since the war. Then they represented that we were endangered by substantial stockpiles of WMDs, of which extremely minimal amounts have been seen.

If stable democracies result from our incursion, that is wonderful. But, save for furt and a few other foresighted people like him, that was not the reason given for going to war. In fact, it was not any of the primary reasons given over the course of time.

I don’t like a government that plays Three Card Monte with the truth (guess which cup the real reason is under; watch carefully as I move them around!).

And while we’re on the subject, Lebanon had a stable democratic government including protections for ethnic minorities. Eisenhower sent in the Marines to protect it. It’s purely amazing that Mr. Bush is going to “give them democracy” when one of his Republican predecessors was defending the democracy they had.

“The American people have all the historical awareness of tree shrews.” – Cecil Adams

14

furt, you still haven’t described, let alone proven, any causal connection between the Iraq War and the resignation of the Lebanese government, Mubarak’s recent announcement, etc.

15

What do you want, empirical quantification? This ain’t a lab. Do you, in fact, want to argue that all of these things would have happened anyway?

I can’t prove that Saddam wouldn’t have suddenly spent all his money on puppies for children. But Occam’s Razor is on the side of “Gee, have there been any major developments in the last year or two that might have caused this sudden groundswell of support for democracy?”

16

No, furt, Occam’s Razor is on the side of rejecting any causal connection between these events unless something beyond mere coincidence in time is demonstrated.

17

I swear, I don’t think anyone bothers to read anymore.

I did NOT claim prophetic foreknowlege: I specifically pointed out that I was only a somewhat reluctant supporter of the war. As far as cites, did you bother to read the January 2004 thread I linked to in the OP (as well as the second thread which it led to), in which I explained, at great length, that this was exactly the overall plan as I had come to understand it?

I respectfully submit that if you had been bothering to read a few more sources that didn’t already accord with what you already believed, you would have understood that this wasn’t the truth.

There were many voices, Thomas Freidman and Christopher Hitchens being two that come to mind, who were making the case for war on grounds completely seperate from WMD. Here’s one column: “Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others — and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.”

I assume that’s your own scarecrow you’re quoting there?

There’s a big difference between “give them democracy,” and “intimidate the dictators, thus emboldening the people to take back their own nations” which would have been a far more accurate statement of US policy. But I understand that that isn’t so easily dismissed.

18

Sure thing. You’ve been dismissing the notion of change in the ME since day one of Operation Iraqi Freedom (not ‘Operation Iraqi WMD and WMD only’, rjung, as your one-trick self will note), and now that your damned lying eyes are trying to convince you otherwise, now it’s just a ‘unintended consequence’, huh?

The left’s capability for self-delusion is simply amazing.

19

And what about the statements of Middle Easterners and the press in the Middle East that the recent actions were inspired at least in part by the elections in Iraq that have already been given in this thread? On what basis do you reject those?

Or you could have listened for what Bush actually said. To the UN (emphasis added):

On the eve of battle:

In a press conference:

Do I need to go on, or can we agree that you’re focusing a little too hard on the WMD and not enough on what Bush actually said?

20

So to be clear: is it your position that movements toward democracy in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar, all of which have taken place in last month or two all likely would have happened anyway?

How did Egyptian state TV put it? Something like “a step forward in Egypt’s 7,000 year old march to democracy?” Oh, yeah, wheels of inevitability there.

Mind you; I’m not saying that it’s necessarily the ONLY reason … but are you claiming that it’s not A reason?