# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/61 "2005-03-04T00:02:52Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > [How about this?](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45575-2005Feb22) Jumblatt has made a remarkable about-face regarding America – but that strikes me as rather opportunistic, America being the new biggest kid in the neighborhood. I.e., he now sees us as potential allies of the Lebanese against the Syrians. And why does he think that? . . . Let’s not go there. Let’s really not go there. ---
**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 4, 2005, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/62 "2005-03-04T00:05:34Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Well, yes. This was exactly the cold-war “our son of a bitch” philosophy that Bush pointedly said he was abandoning in 2002/3, because it was both repugnant and counterproductive. I have always thought the same. So what he has done to push Saudi Arabia or Egypt towards democracy? Seems like we give a “small chunk of change” to Egypt every year. Any new strings attached to that? > [@](#): > > I don’t think so. > > Is there any evidence that Afghanis want the Taliban back? Is there a popular groundwell of fundamentalist Islamicism in Iraq … or anywhere else, right now… I was talking specifically about Saudi Arabia wrt ObL. I don’t have the cites handy, but surely you’ve seen the public opinion polls where a significant majorty of Saudis consider ObL to be a hero, haven’t you? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/63 "2005-03-04T00:14:56Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Well, yes. This was exactly the cold-war “our son of a bitch” philosophy that Bush pointedly said he was abandoning in 2002/3, because it was both repugnant and counterproductive. I have always thought the same. 😛 He might have **said** he was abandoning it – but do you think Pervez Musharraf or King Fahd are losing any sleep? > [@furt](#): > > Is there a popular groundwell of fundamentalist Islamicism in Iraq … or anywhere else, right now? Errmm . . . yes, there is, **furt.** It might not be a majority viewpoint in Iraq but it definitely has been a very important factor, both in the election and in the insurgency. Fundamentalist Islamicism also remains pretty important in Egypt. And Iran, needless to say. As for Saudi Arabia – we’ve discussed the prospects for change there in several GD threads in the past year, and the consensus is that the only significant opposition to the monarchy is coming from radical Wahhabists like bin Laden who think the House of Saud is too corrupt, impious and Westernized. To date, no one has offered the slightest shred of evidence of any pro-secular-democracy movement, or grassroots sentiment, in SA. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/64 "2005-03-04T00:14:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I don’t accept or reject them because I haven’t seen them. I recall no such statements in the links in **furt’s** OP; perhaps I read them too quickly. To what post # are you referring? Posts 1 (NY Times editorial and Mark Steyn), 8 and 9 (Jumblatt), 17 (Hitchens and Freidman), and 25 (Washington Post, the Guardian, Der Speigel, NY Times, and those conservative bastions Matthew Iglesias and Jon Stewart). ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/65 "2005-03-04T00:16:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In this thread, following your links in the OP and reading others’ posts, I have seen only quotes discussing the existence of pro-democracy developments in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and Egypt at this time; I have seen no quotes describing, let alone proving, the existence of any causal connection between those events and the invasion and occupation of Iraq. No one has even claimed, e.g., that the Lebanese who publicly demonstrated after Hariri’s assassination are in any way inspired by events in Iraq. Until I see something along those lines, I can’t even begin to evaluate its weight. Again, I ask: 1. What sort of “proof” do you want? I can’t “prove” that the work of Freud and Darwin spurred changes in societal attitudes, but I can certainly argue that they did. 2. Are you contending that these things are _not_ connected? Do you intend to take a contrary position, or do you merely want to play the don? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/66 "2005-03-04T00:25:53Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > So what he has done to push Saudi Arabia or Egypt towards democracy? Seems like we give a “small chunk of change” to Egypt every year. Any new strings attached to that? [Yes, actually.](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-egypt28feb28,1,2344694.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=2&cset=true) [/QUOTE] I was talking specifically about Saudi Arabia wrt ObL. I don’t have the cites handy, but surely you’ve seen the public opinion polls where a significant majorty of Saudis consider ObL to be a hero, haven’t you? [/QUOTE] Sure. And SA will be the last to throw off Wahhabism, simply because there they have the cash, and there the US has been so deeply in bed with the Sauds. _But keep in mind, I’m **NOT** saying that this is pro-US sentiment._ Arab democracy is a “third way” between, on the one hand, the dictators, and on the other, the Islamicists. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/67 "2005-03-04T00:30:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😛 He might have **said** he was abandoning it – but do you think Pervez Musharraf or King Fahd are losing any sleep? The former, no, not yet. But I think he also knows which way the wind blows. The latter, yes. > [@](#): > > It might not be a majority viewpoint in Iraq but it definitely has been a very important factor, both in the election and in the insurgency. Fundamentalist Islamicism also remains pretty important in Egypt. And Iran, needless to say. As for Saudi Arabia – we’ve discussed the prospects for change there in several GD threads in the past year, and the consensus is that the only significant opposition to the monarchy is coming from radical Wahhabists like bin Laden who think the House of Saud is too corrupt, impious and Westernized. To date, no one has offered the slightest shred of evidence of any pro-secular-democracy movement, or grassroots sentiment, in SA. Oh, I’m not saying its dead … not by a mile. But I would argue that in the region as a whole, its influence will be, and indeed, is, waning in the face of real deomcracy as a viable alternative. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/68 "2005-03-04T00:51:06Z")
> [@furt](#): > > …_But keep in mind, I’m **NOT** saying that this is pro-US sentiment._ Arab democracy is a “third way” between, on the one hand, the dictators, and on the other, the Islamicists. But the Islamists were _elected_ in Iran, in what appears to be an open and fair election. There is ample evidence that a large portion of Irans population deeply regrets that fact, but the fact remains. There is nothing inherently secular about democracy, as witness the impact of the fundy Right on American politics. And **AQA** , you seem to be trying to have it both ways: you claim that WMD’s were just one of many reasons, and offer quotes as proof. OK, so GeeDubya is willing to dress up his foreign policy blunder as a noble effort for egalitrarianism. Now, if this were truly the case, why not (as I’ve mentioned but you seem to have missed) start with countrys we already occupy, such as Kuwait? Kuwait is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a democracy a-borning. If every word weighed the same, the mass of verbiage expended upon WMD as a justification for war would vastly outweigh the verbiage expended on “democracy”. Are you going to deny this? But come now. Anyone with the good sense God gave a goose knows full well that we were sold this war based on the threat of Iraq, a threat that has since proved to be bullshit. Whatever splendid consequences might arise, either by purposeful and forsightful planning or sheer dumb luck, does not change this fundamental fact. If you wish to claim that the bullshit was justified by the glorious dawning of ME democracy, that is your privilege. But at least speak plainly. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/69 "2005-03-04T00:53:16Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Posts 1 (NY Times editorial and Mark Steyn), 8 and 9 (Jumblatt), 17 (Hitchens and Freidman), and 25 (Washington Post, the Guardian, Der Speigel, NY Times, and those conservative bastions Matthew Iglesias and Jon Stewart). Post #1: Mark Steyn: Does not actually demonstrate or even describe any causal connections between Iraq and the other events, he simply assumes them. WRT Egypt, he mentions U.S. pressure as pushing Mubarak in the direction of democracy – but such pressure does not really depend on our having troops in Iraq, does it? The NYT editorial: Does not even **imply** that the Iraq War precipitated any of the other events; it’s simply a list of hopeful developments, happening at the same time, and lumped under the general heading of “breaking the ice.” (A strikingly inapt metaphor for anything Middle Eastern. 😉 ) Post #8 & 9: Jumblatt might say that, but that doesn’t mean he’s right. The sequence of events in Lebanon was: (1) Hariri, an anti-occupation activist, announced intention to run for another term as P.M. (2) Hariri was assassinated. (3) Popular suspicion fell on Syria. (4) This ignited long-simmering public resentment of the Syrian occupation, culminating in massive demonstrations in the street. (5) The pro-occupation government responded to obvious public feeling and resigned. Where’s Iraq or the U.S. in any of that? Post #25: Washington Post: Says nothing, really, but that the Arab autocrats are feeling scared – which is not necessarily a good thing. (See below.) Matthew Yglesias: Content-free glurge. The Guardian: “The Lebanese protesters are surely emboldened by the knowledge that Syria is under heavy pressure, with US and France united in demanding its withdrawal.” Maybe so, but what’s that got to do with Iraq? “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.” :eek: This is less inspiring than chilling! In claiming a “domino effect,” **furt** seems to be asserting that these changes are happening because the **peoples** of the ME are inspired by the Iraqis’ example in going to the polls. But this article is saying it’s because their leaders are afraid of U.S. military action (and their pro-democracy movements are, perhaps, inspired by the same prospect). You see the difference? I hope you see the difference. It’s a very important difference. Der Speigel: Again, content-free. Washington Post: 😕 “Catastrophe theory”? I have doubts as to whether this even deserves to be dignified with the name of pseudoscience. New York Times: Of course there could have been no democratic elections in Iraq if Hussein were still in power. But, again, no causal relationship is described between that and anything else. Jon Stewart: Is merely considering the possibility that a “wave of change” exists. The interview is all over the map. Soderberg says, “I think partly what’s going on is the country next door, Syria, has been controlling them for decades, and they [the Syrians] were dumb enough to blow up the former prime minister of Lebanon in Beirut, and they’re–people are sort of sick of that, and saying, “Wait a minute, that’s a stretch too far.” So part of what’s going on is they’re just protesting that. But I think there is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it though the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them.” Just so, but that doesn’t mean the Iraq War was in any way a precondition for it. ---
**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 4, 2005, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/70 "2005-03-04T01:13:29Z")
See, when you don’t want to believe what’s in front of your eyes, all the evidence presented is just ‘content free glurge’. Of course, when those same left-wing source say things that Brainglutton approves of, they become authoritative, argument-proof cites. As for whether democratization of the Middle East is a post-war justification after WMD weren’t found, I’d like to point out what I said in the old, “Iraq Prediction Thread” several years ago (and before the war started): > [@](#): > > A year from now, the start of real change in the middle east will be happening. The dissident movement in Iran will gain strength. Hizbollah will either be under attack in Lebanon, or gone. Libya will renounce terrorism. The U.S. government will begin to pressure Saudi Arabia, sparking real change there. > > Ten years from now, the middle east will be very different. There will be a general agreement that terrorism is counter-productive to the goals of the Arab countries. The U.S. may have to take down another regime before it’s all over - Syria perhaps. But in the end, history will show that the fall of Iraq was the event that started the process of real change for the better in the middle east. I recall meeting with a lot of derision over those predictions. **John Mace** said: > [@](#): > > I was talking specifically about Saudi Arabia wrt ObL. I don’t have the cites handy, but surely you’ve seen the public opinion polls where a significant majorty of Saudis consider ObL to be a hero, haven’t you? Opinion polls taken in dictatorships mean nothing. But even if there is an overall pro-Islamist sentiment there, the reason is because the Saudis have been paying off the extremists in their country for years to keep them in line, and the extremists have used that money to radicalize the population through education, intimidation, and forcing charity to go through them. Take away the dictatorship, and things will change. It may take time. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/71 "2005-03-04T01:15:56Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Take away the dictatorship, and things will change. It may take time. Excellent! Just so long as it doesn’t take another war! ---
**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 4, 2005, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/72 "2005-03-04T01:23:10Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But the Islamists were _elected_ in Iran, in what appears to be an open and fair election. There is ample evidence that a large portion of Irans population deeply regrets that fact, but the fact remains. There is nothing inherently secular about democracy, as witness the impact of the fundy Right on American politics. Which “free and fair elections” are you referring to? The Council of Guardians (unelected clerics) get to veto any candidates they don’t like. I’m pretty much with you on this thread’s topic, **'luc** , but “free and fair elections” in Iran? Am I missing something…? **Sam** : Yes, polling info isn’t always the best source of data, but do you have anything better? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/73 "2005-03-04T01:27:44Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But the Islamists were elected in Iran, in what appears to be an open and fair election. There is ample evidence that a large portion of Irans population deeply regrets that fact, but the fact remains. There is nothing inherently secular about democracy, as witness the impact of the fundy Right on American politics. You are joking, right? ‘Open and fair elections’ in Iran?? They elected Islamists in Iran 'luci because only Islamists are on the ballot. Its kind of like saying the Iraqi’s REALLY liked Saddam because they kept electing him. -XT ---
**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 4, 2005, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/74 "2005-03-04T01:29:16Z")
> [@furt](#): > > [Yes, actually.](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-egypt28feb28,1,2344694.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=2&cset=true) Is there a non-registration cite for that info, or can you quote the pertinent part? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/75 "2005-03-04T01:33:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And **AQA** , you seem to be trying to have it both ways: you claim that WMD’s were just one of many reasons, and offer quotes as proof. OK, so GeeDubya is willing to dress up his foreign policy blunder as a noble effort for egalitrarianism. Now, if this were truly the case, why not (as I’ve mentioned but you seem to have missed) start with countrys we already occupy, such as Kuwait? Kuwait is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a democracy a-borning. Apparently, I’ve been unclear. There were many, many reasons to go to war with Iraq. Just as WMD wasn’t the only reason for the war in Iraq, democratizing Iraq wasn’t the only reason for war. If you read the post I linked to earlier, you’ll see that there was a very long list of reasons that Iraq made a prime target for war. There were far fewer reasons for war against Kuwait. For example, Kuwait does not have a history of aggression against its neighbors in the region, Kuwait has not been accused of torturing and murdering its own citizens, Kuwait is not an avowed enemy of the US, etc. > [@elucidator](#): > > If every word weighed the same, the mass of verbiage expended upon WMD as a justification for war would vastly outweigh the verbiage expended on “democracy”. Are you going to deny this? No, but I do deny that it matters much. Just because I spend a lot more time talking about the Dallas Cowboys doesn’t mean the Oakland Raiders don’t exist. And just because I told that girl last night that I asked her out because of her wonderful personality doesn’t mean that there weren’t other, perfectly valid reasons I asked her out. > [@elucidator](#): > > But come now. Anyone with the good sense God gave a goose knows full well that we were sold this war based on the threat of Iraq, a threat that has since proved to be bullshit. Whatever splendid consequences might arise, either by purposeful and forsightful planning or sheer dumb luck, does not change this fundamental fact. If you wish to claim that the bullshit was justified by the glorious dawning of ME democracy, that is your privilege. But at least speak plainly. I believe I have spoken plainly. But I’m starting to see why we’re having trouble reaching a consensus. You seem to be under the impression that the Bush administration can have only **one** reason for war at a time. Well, I’m pleased to inform you that despite our obvious mental deficiencies, we conservatives can actually hold more than one idea in our heads at any given time (… well, at least some of us can, … at least when the ends are consonant, … and we concentrate really hard). In fact, we can have lots of reasons for the things we support and the things we do. For example, I’m eating goldfish crackers right now because they’re delicious and because I’m hungry and because they’re fun to eat and because they don’t drip sauce on my shirt and because they’re sitting right in front of me, and for quite a few other reasons, too. There was no one justification that made the war with Iraq justified. It’s the existence of all those reasons that made war with Iraq justified. And the mere fact that Bush didn’t talk as much (or even at all) about those other reasons doesn’t mean that they weren’t good and valid reasons for war. And the existence of all those other reasons is why Bush isn’t being hypocritical for not waging war against other countries that fit some, but not all, of those reasons. It’s complicated, but there are at least a few of us conservatives that can hold such ideas in our heads without blood pouring from our ears. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/76 "2005-03-04T01:34:00Z")
This is a riot! I have a friend at work, a very conservative fellow, who some time ago made a prediction. “Bob,” he said, “you’ll know that Bush was right, you can be certain that he chose the right path, when a certain progression occurs.” This was what he told me to look for:[ul][li]The goals that the adminstration specifically identified and predicted would begin to unfold. Democracy would start to take root in the ME, with people specifically citing the “Bush Doctrine” as the inspiration for their efforts.[/li][li]The Left would snort, “Merely coincidence!”[/li][li]As democracy took a firmer hold, this would lead to, “Actually, this outcome was an inevitability, completely unrelated to anything the Bush adminstration did. In fact, I believe I may have predicted this back in the Clinton administration. Yes, nothing surprising here at all.”[/li]And finally, “Now that I think about it, the invasion of Iraq probably set back the cause of democracy. If only Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, the tide would have turned months earlier. Damn Republicans!”[/ul]My pal points out the leftist apologists who similarly dismissed Reagan’s influence on the fall of the Soviet Union. Anyway, judging by this thread, we’re in phase II (“merely a coincidence”). I can’t wait to see if my buddy’s progression concludes as he predicts. Maybe even in this thread! Stay tuned… ---
**Author:** ![buns3000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c89c15/32.png) [@buns3000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buns3000)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/77 "2005-03-04T02:57:38Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > There was no one justification that made the war with Iraq justified. It’s the existence of all those reasons that made war with Iraq justified. And the mere fact that Bush didn’t talk as much (or even at all) about those other reasons doesn’t mean that they weren’t good and valid reasons for war. I submit you’re wrong about this. There was only one _justification_ for the war. There were, however, a number of stated _reasons_. When you say that the reasons for the war not pertaining to WMD and Iraq’s supposed imminent threat to world peace based thereon were “good and valid reasons for war”, what do you base that on? Lets leave aside for the moment that, were the other reasons sufficient to justify the war, there’d have been no need to cherrypick/distort intelligence concerning the WMD. What you are arguing is that the war was justified despite the fact that Iraq did not hold WMD and thus did not pose a threat to world peace. Do you acknowledge that this is a very radical departure from the UN Charter and the history of international relations since WW11? The tone of your last post suggests that the proposition is not at all novel. Its your right to argue and believe that unprovoked wars waged against countries that do not pose any threat to international peace are “justified”, but don’t kid yourself that that view doesn’t constitute a massive moving of the goalposts condemned almost unanimously internationally and a minority view even amongst Bush supporters ([cite](http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf)). ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/78 "2005-03-04T03:29:47Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Is there a non-registration cite for that info, or can you quote the pertinent part? The LA Times is properly humble before me, and did not ask for registration: > [@](#): > > Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s dramatic decision to allow a competitive presidential election comes amid a behind-the-scenes struggle by the Bush administration and Congress to require Cairo to spend part of its annual $2 billion in U.S. aid on political and economic reform ---
**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 4, 2005, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/79 "2005-03-04T03:48:50Z")
These were Bush’s conditions for avoiding the Iraq war, as stated in the U.N. General Assembly in Sept, 2002: > [@](#): > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Note that WMD is only one of five conditions. Comments by Ari Fleicher at a press conference before the war: > [@](#): > > QUESTION: Ari, the President is going to talk tonight about the future of Iraq as he sees it. What does he think is the level of sacrifice and some of the downsides to American-led occupation of Iraq after an invasion? And what does he envision the immediate outcome will be, not only in Iraq, but in the area? > > MR. FLEISCHER: The President will get into this at some length tonight, but this will be a big-picture speech about the situation in Iraq. > > It will be a big picture piece about peace and disarmament. The President will talk in the speech about what the future may hold, not only for the people of Iraq, once liberated and allowed to become on their own, democratic; but also what it means for the security of the region, because the President believes that a free Iraq will lead to a more stable Mideast. Here’s what Bush said at [the American Enterprise Institute](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html) two years ago: > [@](#): > > The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein – but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.) > > Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime’s torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. (Applause.) > > … > > The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the “freedom gap” so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause.) > > It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world – or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim – is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different. Yet the human heart desires the same good things, everywhere on Earth. In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror. (Applause.) > > Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. (Applause.) The passing of Saddam Hussein’s regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated. (Applause.) Note that the statements above are virtually identical to the statements he’s been making since, and yet they were given before the war. I’m not surprised that the left has managed to bury all the other reasons for going to war with Iraq - the failure to find WMD ensured that the left would seize it as THE rationale for war, because it was the one they could discredit. But the administration has been talking about many reasons for invading Iraq, and ‘draining the swamp’ was in fact that overall strategic goal - WMD was the casus belli that the U.S. used to show the war was legal, but the motivation for war was much more complex than that. In fact, ‘draining the swamp’ was a catchphrase used by pundits during the run-up to war. I don’t know how many recall this, but early on in the run-up to war, the administration was accused of ‘incoherence’, because it floated so many different rationales. Cheney would show up on Meet the Press and talk about WMD. Then the next day Perle would go on another show and talk about remaking the middle east. Critics started accusing the administration of not being able to stick to a reason, so they graduallly zeroed in on WMD. But as you can see, democratizing the middle east was always part of the plan. ---
**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 4, 2005, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648/80 "2005-03-04T04:13:16Z")
Here’s another one for you, written while the invasion was underway: [Why are we in Iraq?](http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131523.asp) > [@](#): > > Question: Why are we in Iraq? > > Answer: The neoconservatives made us do it. > > The buzz in Washington and beyond has been that President Bush’s attack on Iraq came straight from the playbook of the neoconservatives, a group of mostly Republican strategists, many of whom have gotten funding from Milwaukee’s Bradley Foundation. The neoconservatives differ from traditional conservatives in favoring a more activist role for government and a more aggressive foreign policy. > > Led by Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, the neoconservatives have offered a sweeping new vision for U.S. foreign policy: to restructure the Middle East and supplant dictators around the world By the way, the Bush speech I linked to in the last message was given at the American Enterprise Institute, and was widely considered at the time to be proof that Bush had ‘bought’ the Neocon vision of the was as being all about remaking the Middle East and ‘draining the swamp’ of terrorists by causing a catalytic reaction through the other tyrannies in the region. This neocon strategy has been widely known since 1991, and really came to the forefront in 1997 when the Weekly Standard published an issue dedicated to the proposition that ‘Saddam Must Go’, and remaking the Middle East was a big part of it. Al Gore and Bill Clinton were on board with that, by the way, and in the 2000 election Gore reiterated that it was imperative that Saddam’s regime be brought down. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-domino-theory-revisited/292648.md?page=5)