# The Democratic Domino Theory Revisited **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2005, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648 "2005-03-02T21:00:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/21 "2005-03-03T00:19:29Z")
I repeat, **where’s the causal connection?** The resignation of the Lebanese government was obviously precipitated by the assassination of anti-occupation politician Rafik Hariri – who was active in politics, and opposing the occupation, long before the Iraq War, wasn’t he? And I don’t think he was assassinated by Iraqi insurgents. The Syrian opposition is feeling a lift because the Lebanese example inspires them. Palestinian politics are being redefined because Arafat died – which he was bound to do, sooner or later. As for Egypt, maybe after 23 years in power, Mubarak is just tired of being a dicator and thinks things are calm enough to risk elections. What has any of this to do with Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/22 "2005-03-03T00:28:10Z")
Dominos aren’t falling fast enough. Let’s kill more people. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/23 "2005-03-03T00:48:00Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Dominos aren’t falling fast enough. Let’s kill more people. Another one trick pony. Freedom and Democracy are fought for. Get over it. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/24 "2005-03-03T01:17:07Z")
> [@furt](#): > > 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. No sir, I did not pursue your links. I felt the thread topic could stand on its own. For throwing in a red herring through not following up material you offered, I do apologize. > [@](#): > > 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](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/): “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.” Okay. My objections were to **the Bush Administration justifications**. Insofar as I know, neither Freidman nor Hitchens has military force with which to invade another nation. It’s their privilege to support the war on whatever grounds they choose. However, were these justifications adopted by the Administration prior to the war? > [@](#): > > 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. You mistake me here. If pro-democratic movements install democracies in the countries of the Middle East which do not now have them, that’s fine. My objection was, “What happened to the stable democratic government of Lebanon?” And, “Mr. Bush cannot claim to be giving Lebanon democracy.” Should the Lebanese be enabled, by virtue of the Iraq War or anything else, to re-establish their democracy, I’ll join you in rejoicing however it may happen. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/25 "2005-03-03T01:44:19Z")
Wait, let me update my Iraq war scorecard: What the Neocons were wrong about: **WMD**. What the left was wrong about: **Everything else**. Remember the ‘Arab Street’? How it was going to rise up in flames? How about the brutal Afghan winter? The brutal Iraq summer? The civil war in Iraq? The humanitarian disaster? The quagmire? Remember how the insurgency was supposedly a populist movement strongly supported by the Iraqi people? Recall how the war was going to incite the other ME countries into building their own WMD, and how new terrorists were going to come flocking out of the Middle East? Remember how the elections must be delayed, because the security situation won’t allow them? Ted Kennedy was all over that idea. In fact, Kennedy wanted to cut and run, because it was a ‘disaster’. As for the rationale for war, I suggest you go back and read the history. The WMD argument was only one of many arguments. It rose to the forefront not because of the Neocons, who felt the U.S. should just do it, but because of the people who demanded that the U.S. go to the U.N. for approval. That required a legalistic argument, which forced the administration to focus on WMD and broken U.N. resolutions. That turns out to have been a mistake. But I didn’t bother to start a thread like this several days ago, because I knew it would turn into yet another thread where the two sides don’t budge an inch and people demand cites and proof for things that are non-citable. Brainglutton wants proof that the Iraq invasion had anything to do with Lebanon. Such a thing simply cannot be proved. But anyone with any sense can see what’s going on - the demand for proof is just a convenient way to avoid having to re-examine one’s own cherished beliefs. But here are some people who opposed the war but are not quite so blind: [The Washington Post:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58850-2005Feb27.html) > [@](#): > > Those who have declared the war an irretrievable catastrophe have been gloating for at least a year over the supposed puncturing of what they portray as President Bush’s fanciful illusion that democracy would take root in Iraq and spread through the region. They may yet be proved right. But how, then, to explain the tens of thousands who marched through Beirut last Monday carrying red and white roses and scarves – the colors of what they call the “independence intifada” – and calling for “freedom, independence and sovereignty” from neighboring Syria? Or the hundreds of Egyptian protesters who gathered that same day at Cairo University, in defiance of thousands of police officers, to chant the slogan of “kifaya,” or “enough,” at 76-year-old President Hosni Mubarak? > … > There has been no political ferment in Damascus since the 1960s, or in Cairo since the 1950s. Now, within weeks of Iraq’s elections, Mubarak and Assad are tacking with panicked haste between bold acts of repression, which invite an international backlash, and big promises of reform – which also may backfire, if they prove to be empty. They could yet survive; but quite clearly, the Arab autocrats don’t regard the Bush dream of democratic dominoes as fanciful. [Matthew Yglesias](http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/02/credit_where_du.html) > [@](#): > > Look, people, get excited! Yes, it’s but a tentative step and things could still all work out poorly, but still, this is a pretty unambiguous success for Bush’s second term freedom kick. It’s also a stunning refutation of those of us who argued that he’d never follow through on his lofty rhetoric. Give the man some props. [The Guardian:](http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1428372,00.html) > [@](#): > > \*\*We need to face up to the fact that the Iraq invasion has intensified pressure for democracy in the Middle East \*\* > > … if [Tony Blair] had wanted to brag and claim credit - boasting that the toppling of Saddam Hussein had set off a benign chain reaction - he would have had plenty of evidence to call on. > … > it cannot be escaped: the US-led invasion of Iraq has changed the calculus in the region. The Lebanese protesters are surely emboldened by the knowledge that Syria is under heavy pressure, with US and France united in demanding its withdrawal. That pressure carries an extra sting if Damascus feels that the latest diplomatic signals - including Tony Blair’s remark yesterday that Syria had had its “chance” but failed to take it and Condoleezza Rice’s declaration that the country was “out of step with where the region is going” - translate crudely as “You’re next”. > > Similar thinking is surely at work in the decisions of Iran and Libya on WMD and Saudi Arabia and Egypt on elections. Put simply, President Bush seems like a man on a mission to spread what he calls the “untamed fire of freedom” - and these Arab leaders don’t want to get burned. > > This leaves opponents of the Iraq war in a tricky position, even if the PM is not about to rub our faces in the fact. Not only did we set our face against a military adventure which seems, even if indirectly, to have triggered a series of potentially welcome side effects; we also stood against the wider world-view that George Bush represented. What should we say now? > > First, we ought to admit that the dark cloud of the Iraq war may have carried a silver lining. We can still argue that the war was wrong-headed, illegal, deceitful and too costly of human lives - and that its most important gain, the removal of Saddam, could have been achieved by other means. But we should be big enough to concede that it could yet have at least one good outcome. [Der Spiegel:](http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,343378,00.html) > [@](#): > > **Could George W. Bush Be Right?** > > Germany loves to criticize US President George W. Bush’s Middle East policies – just like Germany loved to criticize former President Ronald Reagan. But Reagan, when he demanded that Gorbachev remove the Berlin Wall, turned out to be right. Could history repeat itself? [The Washington Post:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64395-2005Mar1.html) > [@](#): > > There’s an obscure branch of mathematics known as “catastrophe theory,” which looks at how a small perturbation in a previously stable system can suddenly produce dramatic change. A classic example of the theory is the way a bridge, after bearing immense weight for many years, can suddenly collapse because of a new stress. > > We are now watching a glorious catastrophe take place in the Middle East. The old system that had looked so stable is ripping apart, with each beam pulling another down as it falls. **The sudden stress that produced the catastrophe was the American invasion of Iraq two years ago.** But this Arab power structure has been rotting at the joints for a generation. The real force that’s bringing it down is public anger. [The New York Times:](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/opinion/01tue1.html) > [@](#): > > this has so far been a year of heartening surprises - each one remarkable in itself, and taken together truly astonishing. 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. And for all the negative consequences that flowed from the American invasion of Iraq, there could have been no democratic elections there this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in power. [Jon Stewart:](http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362) > [@](#): > > Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had, sort of, the courage of their conviction, having not seen–not only the invasion but the election which followed? It’s almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy–something’s going on over there. I’m smelling something. > … > …this is the most difficult thing for me to–because, I think, I don’t care for the tactics, I don’t care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven’t seen results like this ever in that region. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/26 "2005-03-03T01:50:05Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Another one trick pony. Freedom and Democracy are fought for. Get over it. Hey, my one trick is emulating Wittgenstein. That was just a throwaway I had lying around. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/27 "2005-03-03T01:52:57Z")
> [@furt](#): > > 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. Yeah, it’s called “throwing out bushit to sell a war for self-serving interests.” WMD was the convenient bogeyman excuse to frighten the populace into backing the damn fool war. But when said WMDs failed to materialize (thanks in large part to inept cherry-picking of half-baked intel), the Administration couldn’t admit to either screwing up or lying to the public, so they scrambled with the revisionist backpedal twaddle about how it was just a “salable” excuse. The ability of the Bush Apologists to regurgitate this nonsense – even in the face of overwhelming pre-war bushit from high-ranking Administration officials – merely demonstrates how pervasive the groupthink is. (And frankly, the idea that a war has to be “sold” to the public – as if it were nothing more than a new brand of sugar water – is repulsive enough to reflect horribly on the duplicity of those peddling it. But that’s a topic for another thread…) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/28 "2005-03-03T01:57:31Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > However, were these justifications adopted by the Administration prior to the war? As **furt** ’s links show, yes they were. As he showed, here’s a link to the President’s speech to the AEI, where, along with the comments about WMDs, he talks about bringing democracy, human rights, and humanitarian aid to Iraq. > **[Briefing Room | The White House](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/)** Here’s the White House list of reasons as to why Iraq is a threat and action is required. It does include WMD reasons, but it also talks about human rights violations, violence against women and children, and refusal to return prisoners taken after the first Gulf War: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/reasons.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/reasons.html) In the Iraq report, the White House says: > [@](#): > > If we act, we can see a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can demonstrate that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/29 "2005-03-03T02:20:18Z")
From [http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/reasons.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/reasons.html) ```auto ``` In what year did we invade Iraq? Don’t reasons normally _precede_ actions? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/30 "2005-03-03T02:48:41Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > What the Neocons were wrong about: **WMD**. > > What the left was wrong about: **Everything else**. > > Remember the ‘Arab Street’? How it was going to rise up in flames? How about the brutal Afghan winter? The brutal Iraq summer? The civil war in Iraq? The humanitarian disaster? The quagmire? Remember how the insurgency was supposedly a populist movement strongly supported by the Iraqi people? Recall how the war was going to incite the other ME countries into building their own WMD, and how new terrorists were going to come flocking out of the Middle East? Afghanistan’s national economy remains crippled and largely dependent on the heroin trade; it is obvious that there would be a flaming civil war in Iraq if our troops weren’t on the ground; Iraq is indeed a “quagmire” and a “humanitarian disaster”; the insurgency is clearly a lot more than a few cells of malcontents, and shows no signs of dying down even after the election; the Iraq war has, to say the least, done absolutely nothing to deter Iran from following through whatever plans it had regarding nuclear development (what those plans were remains controversial); and there have been many incidents of terrorism outside Iraq since the invasion. What, exactly, was the left “wrong” about? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/31 "2005-03-03T02:52:46Z")
Other than presonal testimonals, there isn’t going to be a “causal relationship” established. Something like the spread of democracy isn’t like the spread of a virus.-- we’re not going to make a scientific determination. In the case of Lebanon, I think we have enough testimonials to say that the Iraqi elections played a significant role in the willingness of the Lebanese to rally in the streets as they have in the last few days. As for the Palestianians, I think the death of Arafat overwhelms the other factors, and we’ll never really know what role the Iraqi elections played in what happens there (assuming things actually take a turn for the better). Egypt? Meh. I’ll believe it when I see it. There isn’t any real evidence that democracy is taking hold. And this all begs the question: Was invading Iraq the only way or the best way to proliferate democracy in the ME. I don’t see it. We (ie, our government) have shown a willingness to tolerate very undemocratic governments (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan) as long as they’re on our side, while railing against similar governments (Iran, Syria, the Palestinians) which are NOT on our side. All in all, I’m unconvinced. Perhaps there will be some domino effect, but it’s completely unclear that there weren’t other methods to accomplish this that didn’t involve war. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/32 "2005-03-03T03:15:03Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > In the case of Lebanon, I think we have enough testimonials to say that the Iraqi elections played a significant role in the willingness… Then again, I think we have enough evidence from the history of unrest in Lebanon, to say that a major attack, or assassination will inevitably get the various Lebanese factions roiled up, with or without a war in some nearby state. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/33 "2005-03-03T03:23:37Z")
Bush, like the proverbial blind squirrel, does appear to have stumbled on an acorn. However, much as it may surprise the US-centric audience on this board, not everything is about the US. Some of it is about the inspiration of other examples, which we certainly supported, but which came about entirely on their own. Like, for instance, Ukraine. That a discussion that so largely focusses on Lebanon should omit mention of what just recently happened in Ukraine is a pretty stunning display of both ignorance and arrogance. To quote from a column in today’s FT: > [@](#): > > But it is not just the “Iraq effect”: it is Palestinian elections and the paradox, as Arab commentators have observed, that only where there is external occupation are Arab peoples gaining a voice in shaping their future. Does it take occupation, they ask, to empower Arab individuals? > Empowerment is taking place elsewhere, and there is little doubt that the "Orange Revolution"in Ukraine appears to have had a profound effect on the psychology of the Lebanese. Note how the Lebanese have borrowed from Kiev’s example by creating a tent city at the site of the assassination and refusing to leave until the government resigns and the Syrians withdraw. The Ukrainian people captured the world’s imagination **not with violence but with their collective stand against the authorities.** The Lebanese, having also lost their fear, are now making their own statement. Will they succeed? The Syrian regime and its dependents believe they must hold power and wealth or they will lose everything. But their options in Lebanon are clearly not attractive. A massive crackdown that results in the killing of demonstrators will bring the world’s wrath down on Syria, making isolation and collective - not simply American - sanctions likely. A more selective targeting of leading Lebanese politicians might only generate more mass demonstrations. The use of Hizbollah to try to foment internal tensions or even divert attention by triggering a crisis with the Israelis would reveal the Lebanon-based militia group as serving foreign, not Lebanese, interests. Hizbollah’s first priority has always been Lebanon, and it may now be reluctant to be seen as doing Syria’s bidding. from [Lebanon’s Lessons for Arab Leaders](http://news.ft.com/cms/s/55ba0bfe-8a85-11d9-9059-00000e2511c8.html) Just to make this excruciatingly obvious, please recall that the situation in Ukraine was almost exactly analogous to that in Lebanon: a local, pre-existing democracy (not brought into being by the US, please note) that rejected a puppet of a foreign power. Not everything is about what comes out of the brains of the DC dummies, strange as that might seem to some. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/34 "2005-03-03T03:24:00Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Then again, I think we have enough evidence from the history of unrest in Lebanon, to say that a major attack, or assassination will inevitably get the various Lebanese factions roiled up, with or without a war in some nearby state. Absolutely. I think we can safely say that any announcement concerning the death of tyrany in any ME country is premature. ---
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/35 "2005-03-03T05:36:19Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > Just to make this excruciatingly obvious, please recall that the situation in Ukraine was almost exactly analogous to that in Lebanon: a local, pre-existing democracy (not brought into being by the US, please note) that rejected a puppet of a foreign power. Hmmm - it would be interesting to find out whether the major Arab Satellites (Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiyah) covered the situation in the Ukraine extensively. The reason I ask is that I read somewhere (forgot where exactly) that one could make the claim that the rise of the Arab satellites have played a major role in the burgening demand for democratization in the Middle East (if one could call it such). From your link I suspect it did - at least with respect to Lebanon. As to the claim that the US invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein somehow triggered a democratization domino effect - well, I think it’s still way too early to make an assessment. Long standing allies (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) have made token gestures (if that) towards democratization. Egypt (read Mubarak) has announced new multi-party elections - although whether it’s another token gesture (likely) or a genuine one remains to be seen. What happens if the Egyptians decide to install an Islamicist regime via the democractic process (likely if fair/legal multi-party elections actually take place?) Plus, there’s still the issue with Iraq. As the Shia are now effectively in control, who’s to stop them from implementing an Islamist regime that seeks to foster better relations with Iran? And one in which wants to see the Americans leave as quickly as possible? I think it behooves those who support the democratization domino theory to be very careful about what you wish for - you might just get it. But not in the way you envision it. If democratization comes, it will come because the people in those countries want it and in a form that addresses **their** economic, political, and social concerns - which might turn out to be problematic to the long-term (and strategic) interests of the United States. Note: For those who have forgotten, it was al-Sistani that effectlvely forced the US (or rather the CPA) to allow for the elections in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/36 "2005-03-03T06:06:00Z")
> [@eponymous](#): > > Note: For those who have forgotten, it was al-Sistani that effectlvely forced the US (or rather the CPA) to allow for the elections in Iraq. Not exactly. He forced the issue of not DELAYING the elections, but there was never a question about ALLOWING the elections. Big difference. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/37 "2005-03-03T13:03:25Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > From [http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/reasons.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/reasons.html) > > ```auto > > > > > > ``` > > In what year did we invade Iraq? > Don’t reasons normally _precede_ actions? While the html tab on the page is 2004, the president’s speech to the UN is from 2002, and I believe the first page I linked to was originally put up in 2002, as well. ---
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/38 "2005-03-03T17:09:58Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Not exactly. He forced the issue of not DELAYING the elections, but there was never a question about ALLOWING the elections. Big difference. Then what about this? [Caucuses and democracy in Iowa and Iraq: Are direct elections best?](http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/19/findlaw.analysis.dorf.elections/) Relevant section: "However, the planned Iraqi caucuses have come under fire from Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, Iraq’s most widely respected religious figure. Ayatollah Sistani and thousands of his Iraqi Shiite supporters would prefer direct elections to select the government. It is easy to dismiss Sistani’s preference as self-serving. Given Iraq’s Shiite majority, direct elections would almost certainly result in a Shiite-dominated government in which his followers would wield substantial influence. Yet if Sistani favors direct elections in Iraq because of their likely result, the same is true of U.S. officials’ preference for caucuses there. Both President Bush and L. Paul Bremer, the top U.S. civilian administrator for Iraq, favor caucuses at least in part because caucuses would likely lead to greater power sharing with Iraq’s minority Sunni and Kurdish population." So to summerize, while it’s true that their was never any question of allowing the elections, it’s also true that the elections that did take place were a direct result of al-Sistani institing on the manner in which they **DID** take place (direct elections) versus what Bremer and the Bush administration originally had planned for (caucus system). Which underscores my point about the manner in which the democratization process may occur in the region - it will be done by the people themselves in a manner **they** deem important/necessary. Which may, in fact, be contrary to what the US wants or desires. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/39 "2005-03-03T17:19:35Z")
**Sam Stone:** _What the Neocons were wrong about\_: WMD._ And how long the Iraq war would last. And how much it would cost. And how many lives it would take. And the alleged involvement of Hussein in 9/11. And that the Iraq invasion would scare the Iranians away from their nuclear ambitions. And that Iraqi oil revenues would mostly pay for Iraq’s reconstruction. And that detainee torture was just the isolated actions of “a few bad apples”. And that the security situation wouldn’t permit Iraqi elections to be held as early as they were. (You tried to attribute that opinion to Ted Kennedy, but as **John** pointed out, it was the CPA who attempted to delay elections until al-Sistani pressured them.) And that the insurgents were only a few disgruntled Ba’athists. And a number of other things. It’s true—and we’ve known it for over a year now—that the worst pre-invasion forebodings of the war’s opponents didn’t materialize, for which everybody is thankful. And if the ME really moves toward a more stable and peaceful environment, then everybody will be even more thankful. But even if that happens, it won’t justify revisionist attempts to claim that the neocons were right about everything except the WMD blunder (which even the most ardent neocon supporters can’t rationalize away). It’s quite clear that they’ve been wrong about lots of other things too. **Sam Stone:** \*Such a thing simply cannot be proved. But anyone with any sense can see what’s going on - the demand for proof is just a convenient way to avoid having to re-examine one’s own cherished beliefs. \* If you’re so determined to claim that a causal connection that “simply cannot be proved” is nonetheless obvious to “anyone with any sense”, I wonder whether you’ll be ready to acknowledge the Iraq war’s responsibility for **other** post-invasion developments that aren’t quite so cheerful. Such as the al-Qaeda attacks in Madrid and Saudi Arabia, or North Korea’s increased nuclear belligerence, or Iran’s resumption of its nuclear program, or the increasing global [hostility towards the US](http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2003/s874512.htm). If you’re going to assign credit for the positive developments without admitting the need to prove any causal connection, then it’s equally valid to assign blame for the negative developments, using the same standard of proof. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/40 "2005-03-03T17:38:01Z")
> [@eponymous](#): > > Then what about this… I agree 100%, but what’s your point? Your earlier post is still incorrect. If you didn’t mean it that way, it certainly could be interpretted that way (re: “allow”). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648.md?page=3)