How does a Democratic Iraq help against the war on terror?

[Tmy]

Oreilly was blabbing again on how democray in Iraq is needed in oder to protect America. That way you dont have a reigion thats filled with terror states.

Cant a democracy also be a terror state??? If you have a bunch of people who hate the US, whats stopping them from voting for the bad guys? He makes it seem like democratic nations are not troublesome world players.

 

[Hutch]

Not knowing exactly what he said (I only have so many hours remaining in my life--about 350,000 by my calculation--and refuse to spend any listening to him) I would have to disagree with you a bit, Tmy.

In general, democratic states do not make war upon each other. Oh, it's not impossible and one could see two populations become inflamed enough to declare war, but as a general rule you'll not see two truly democratic states wage war on each other.

Now terrorism can become intrenched inside a democracy--see Tim McVeigh or the IRA--but I think the idea of a true (and electable) majority of people willing to promote terrorism/war just isn't as likely...war is a messy, costly, and potentially destabilizing occurrence and in general democratic states don't like to rock the boat.

OK, I can see people lining up to take their shots (Iran--not a truely democratic state and has yet to wage an aggressive war on anyone--they were attacked by Iraq, IIRC; USA--Democratic but the only democratic country we have fought-which was democratic at the time-was ourselves) and I note here and now what is above is very much subject to debate. But as a general rule, you do not see deomcratic states making war or supporting terrorism against one another.

Does this mean I'm agreeing with BOR?

 

[LostAngeles]

I think, and I could be wrong here, that the idea in setting up a democracy with freedom of speech, religion, and all that, is to avoid the pitfalls of having any one person or group come along and gather a large bunch of rabid, devoted, possibly brainwashed followers who will do anything in his/her/their name. By enabling a multitude of ideas to get out there and giving the people a means for peaceful and effective change in the government, the formation of terrorist groups and cells will be much more difficult.

 

[DavidJames]

I think, and I could be wrong here, that the idea in setting up a democracy with freedom of speech, religion, and all that, is to avoid the pitfalls of having any one person or group come along and gather a large bunch of rabid, devoted, possibly brainwashed followers who will do anything in his/her/their name. By enabling a multitude of ideas to get out there and giving the people a means for peaceful and effective change in the government, the formation of terrorist groups and cells will be much more difficult.

I think that makes sense. But it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that even in a democracy, the leaders, using incorrect information, along with powerful rhetoric about "defending themselves" could lead that nation to attack another much weaker nation.

 

[LostAngeles]

I think that makes sense. But it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that even in a democracy, the leaders, using incorrect information, along with powerful rhetoric about "defending themselves" could lead that nation to attack another much weaker nation.

Oh absolutely not and I considered bringing that up in my post, although I was going to use the two major parties as an example. I mean, have you met some of the folks that buy completely into every last atomic particle that makes up the media onto which the party line is written? But your example is much more broader in the historical sense of "Hey folks. We need to attack <x> because <y>." Unless of course, you meant something more specific. ( )

The general social theory though is still a good one, if not a bit too idealistic. Freedom of press and speech hasn't prevented cults of religion, ideology, or personality in this or any other country with those same principles, but I think it can be said that it's contained, for lack of a better word. The multitude of viewpoints and ideas that can be and are expressed are out there (in some cases, out there) and unless the person has completely sunk into the "cult," there's a chance that they'll encounter the viewpoint/idea and think about it or look into it.

 

[crimresearch]

"But it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that even in a democracy, the leaders, using incorrect information, along with powerful rhetoric about "defending themselves" could lead that nation to attack another much weaker nation.?

Lebensraum??

 

[Ladyhawk]

All I know is that I've got a real problem with American G.I's dying so that Iraqis can vote. Somehow, that reason doesn't seem like it would go over very well with the families of the soldiers who have died, either. It wouldn't with me.

 

[Hutch]

I think that makes sense. But it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that even in a democracy, the leaders, using incorrect information, along with powerful rhetoric about "defending themselves" could lead that nation to attack another much weaker nation.

Oh absolutely, happens all the time.

But the discussion was regarding getting two democratic nations (for my purposes, countries with free elections, human rights, and rule of law) to fight is much harder, because they are more prone to settle things by meetings, arbitration, treaty, et. al.

 

[Silicon]

How does a Democratic Iraq help against the war on terror?


Easy.


Democrats arm their troops with spitballs, so they'll be easy to defeat once the Democrats control Iraq.



(I guess you meant 'little d' democratic, and you also meant 'wisea$$es need not reply'.)

 

[DavidJames]

But the discussion was regarding getting two democratic nations (for my purposes, countries with free elections, human rights, and rule of law) to fight is much harder, because they are more prone to settle things by meetings, arbitration, treaty, et. al.

The initial question was very simply...

Cant a democracy also be a terror state??? If you have a bunch of people who hate the US, whats stopping them from voting for the bad guys? He makes it seem like democratic nations are not troublesome world players.

It seems to me the answer is clearly yes, but I would agree that it's less likely. A democratic OsamaBinLadenLand with a democratically elected OBL as President would be very troubling and depending how well they hid their intentions, potentially more troubling then the typical axis of evil...empire, a wolf in sheep's clothing if you will.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

It seems quite clear to me:

Step 1: Democracy

Step 2: ???????

Step 3: Defeat for Terrorism

 

[demon]

First you would have to have democratic elections in Iraq to produce a democratic Iraq.
There`s no evidence of the former as far as I can see.
I`d like to know what is the basis for the view that US-UK forces are attempting to bring democracy to Iraq.

 

[Ladewig]

Can't a democracy also be a terror state?

Tmy, why do you hate America?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

As much as I dislike O'Reilly, on this issue, he probably has a point. Although, I am thinking more of long-term safety than short-term. If Iraq is a democracy 20-40 years from now, then it will probably produce fewer terrorists than if it were a secular dictatorship or a religious dictatorship. Also, having a stable democracy in that region lasting that long will provide an example for other nearby countries.

One might also argue that having Iraq become a democracy makes the U.S. mainland safer because the majority of potential Iraqi terrorists will devote all their energies to overthrowing the government.

 

[zenith-nadir]

First you would have to have democratic elections in Iraq to produce a democratic Iraq.There`s no evidence of the former as far as I can see.I`d like to know what is the basis for the view that US-UK forces are attempting to bring democracy to Iraq.

So then Iraqis - and ex-pat Iraqis around the world - voting for iraqi candidates in the first free iraqi election ever is what exactly Demon? Communism? Fascism? Dictatorship? Monarchy? Theocracy?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

I believe a democratic Iraq would likely help the war on terror (that is because studies on collective or political violence shows that a nation with democratic outlets is less prone to outbreaks of/tolerance for political violence). I do not however believe we are dealing with a democratic Iraq.

And what data there is available on the subject, gathered by an Israeli university shows that destabalizing Iraq has harmed the war on terror, by both tying up rescources better used elsewhere, and by garnering support for terrorist elements- chiefly those of Al-Qaeda.

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/foxnews111004.html

 

[Darat]

First you would have to have democratic elections in Iraq to produce a democratic Iraq.
There`s no evidence of the former as far as I can see.
I`d like to know what is the basis for the view that US-UK forces are attempting to bring democracy to Iraq.

It has to up to the Iraqis to make democracy work, it can’t be imposed.

And I'm sure the first election will be flawed, be badly administered and so on but you have to start at some point. It would be wrong to have the expectation that a country that has not had elections before will be able to run as smooth and fair elections as a country that's not had a major (on it's territory) war for decades and has been running fair(ish) elections for a century or two.

To the original point I don't think a democratically elected government in Iraq will significantly reduce the threat of terrorism globally since terrorism seems to be able to thrive in countries where its citizens have more freedoms and rights. However I do believe that in the mid- to long-term the majority of Iraqis will be better off (materially and ideologically) with a government that they can choose for themselves via a ballot box.

It might be risky, in some areas of Iraq, to vote in these elections however the risk doesn’t compare with the risk Iraqis would have had to take to try and change their last government.


(Edited for stuff.)

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

It has to up to the Iraqis to make democracy work, it can’t be imposed.

That is not exactly correct. Germany, Japan and Italy come to mind.

The question of forcing a government is a question of nation-building in general, and many experts agree that nation building can work- provided enough rescources are put into the effort and the venture is managed competently. (I do not think the Bush administration invested nearly enough rescources into Iraq, nor has it managed the situation there paticularly well).

Does nation-building work?

It depends on whom you ask. Skeptics argue that attempting to establish local governance structures is overly ambitious. They call it presumptuous for the international community to think it can help local societies it does not fully understand. These skeptics suggest that the most international actors can be expected to do is to quell civil conflict. Many administration officials are sympathetic to such views, including President Bush, who said on September 25, 2001, “We’re not into nation-building.” American opponents of nation-building warn that prolonged peacekeeping operations dull the combat-readiness of U.S. military forces, place U.S. service personnel in unnecessary danger, and sap resources from missions directly related to defending the United States. This school points to the deaths of 18 U.S. soldiers in Somalia—in the 1993 firefight dramatized in the recent film Black Hawk Down—as a cautionary lesson about nation-building’s follies.

On the other hand, advocates of nation-building argue that without basic structures through which competing ethnic, religious, and political factions can forge compromises, war-torn societies may well be doomed to perpetual conflict. In this view, military action is only the first stage of a successful outside intervention. Nation-building advocates argue that in the aftermath of the Cold War, committing U.S. troops to peacekeeping missions enhances global stability and, hence, U.S. security.

What lessons have been learned from previous nation-building experiences?

Once a decision to support nation-building has been made, experts say, policy makers can draw on lessons learned from previous such operations (of varying degrees of success or failure) in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, and Somalia, among others. These lessons include:

* Each situation is unique, and approaches will have to be crafted accordingly.
* There must be basic public security. Humanitarian aid and local governance can make little headway amid chaos and instability.
* Peacekeeping operations led by a first-rate military, such as that of Britain, Australia, or America, are the most effective.
* Peacekeepers should be given U.N. authority to use “all necessary force,” rather than having to stay passive in quickly shifting situations.
* Respected local leaders should be brought into decision-making to ensure that local priorities are addressed and to provide local “ownership” of the nation-building process.
* Finding ways to deal with past atrocities, such as truth commissions or war crimes tribunals, can provide constructive alternatives to fresh violence.

http://terrorismanswers.org/policy/refugees2.html

I myself think Nation-Building in this day and age as long-overdue. My main reasoning stems from the fact that backwards, undemocratic cultures are proven to be more violent, and that technological evolution in many countries is far outpacing cultural evolution (an interesting tid bit is more people are killed in small arm conflicts of the third world, then in world wars 1 and 2 combined). Given these factors, it would thus be only a matter of time before cultures with the mentality of the medievals acquire WMDs. Without intervention from the democratic First World, I believe it would take centuries before many of these nations come to our level of cultural development at world war 1, let alone levels where I would trust them with "the bomb" (I still don't even completely trust us with "the bomb"). Yet I'm sure most of them will get the bomb in less then a century and I'm willing to bet at least one of these nations/groups will be dumb enough to use it.

In the case of Pakistan, and India we already somewhat have this, and the situation is frightening. Imagine a couple dozen more Kashmir's, some far worse in volatility.....