WAR ON IRAQ IN THE LIGHT OF DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY

Ece DINCASLAN

Izmir University of Economics

ABSTRACT

The democratic peace is one of the best explanatory theories. The roots of this theory go back

to Philosopher Immanuel Kant in his Perpetual Peace, 1795. The foreign policy of the United

States, the War on Terror, and the War in Iraq is predicated on the democratic peace. Bush

administration, tried hold and help Washington in order to achieve a peaceful, stable, and

prosperous Muslim world as, following Iraq's example, democratize.

September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and Saddam’s use of chemical weapons were started and

inducing the war in Iraq. The United States justify itself by enhancing global human security

and decreasing internal political violence.

1. Introduction

At a first glance, Iraq War and occupation which is so called by United States and also

United Kingdom ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom, happened on March 20, 2003. It was composed of

a US-led coalition of nearly forty- nine 49 countries. War on Iraq is not an attack on the

United States to a free and civilized society, "the defence, was adopted under the umbrella

of the Euro-Atlantic. Wars not search the alliance. They will continue to struggle the most

authoritative, one-sided in the mouths of 2002 the new National Security Strategy of the

United States (National Security Strategy of the United States), the transmission power

of "fighting terrorism "to pursue the strategy to use and will feature the absolute sovereignty

of authorized. Thus democratic peace analysis has conclusions and predictions that go far

from other international relations theories of conflict. Democratic peace systems theory guess

that if two such states are democratic, they will not or are very unlikely to go to war with one

another during the time they remain democracies. France-Britain, France-Germany, and

Germany-Russia are the certain examples. However, the Iraq War or so called Operation Iraqi

Freedom can be seen as scientific point of view is questionable. The theory holds and will

help US to achieve a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Muslim world as, over time, Iraq's

neighbours, following Iraq's example, in order to democratize. The United States' real causes

or aims for attacking Iraq may have been really hard to examine, but regime change or the

replacement of Saddam Hussein's governance way with a democracy was central to US's

rhetoric by the time it began bombing Baghdad. Commonly, Iraq war is closely linked with

power and mostly oil or energy politics, also Middle East is a great area which served huge

opportunities rather than the potential Western threats. US governance needs to take

preventive assumptions in the cases of strategy, military and economy because US believe

September 11 deteriorated American democratic life style. In addition, President Bush is

declared that: ‘Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists’, many countries are

concerned about US hegemony in general and administration of the war on terrorism in

particular. Thus, Operation Iraqi Freedom, related with the struggle against the nuclear

proliferation weapons of mass destruction and the try to establish the democratic political

culture and enhance human rights’ status. They have become the central elements determining

the dynamics of the US foreign policy in the Iraq. Kant's theory of democratic peace can be

achieved in an environment of peace for the policies followed are to begin. In the system of

democratic states which would create the basis for a peaceful international basis, the most

important recent formulations are the claims that democratic states are more peaceful than

nondemocratic states. So that, democracies are more peaceful with respect to one another than

other states are. New strategy of deterrence, multilateral cooperation

and strategic partnership ratherthan as pre-making policies, emphasizing the new strategy will

follow the policies revealed. The identity of terrorism, describing the geography and the

geography of terrorism hosts declared the U.S. to act alone, after Afghanistan, "Operation

Iraqi Freedom" code known as the heart of the Middle East, Iraq, next to taking a

strategic ally, the United Kingdom, ‘Without UN Security Council resolution 20 March 2003’

started to attack. 

2. Transparency Issue

If the fundamental transparency issue concerned that US usually shows it as a proof in the

sense of human rights abuses; transparency in states is defined as “legal, political and

institutional structures that make information about the internal characteristics of a

government and society available to actors both inside and outside of the domestic political

system.”1 Because it allows informed action on the part of both citizens and other institutions

of government, transparency is fundamental to democratic in practice. Most analyses of

1 Bernard Finel and Kristin Lord, “The Surprising Logic of Transparency,” International tudies Quarterly 43, no. 2 (June 1999): 315–39. See 316.

transparency use very general measures to track the degree of transparency in a government

overall.2

3. Opponents and Proponents of Iraq War

Because of this war, thousands of Iraqis and US soldiers have died. Many opponents argue

that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, thus Bush administration only wanted Iraq’s oil

and it’s an excuse for the intervention. On the other hand, after 11 September, US declared

Saddam as an international law violator and killed many civilians. This occupation making

the US safer from terrorism in a post 11 September, world all justify the war in Iraq.

Moreover, proponents support the liberalization process of Iraq while showing human rights

abuses as a proof. Iraq War is an important subject matter for the political Democratic Peace

Theory as indicated the below, and democratic peace theory is often disputed since, even if

the theory is accepted, it does not imply that the ‘peace’ has the key characteristics of a

‘democracy’ among countries. Some critics argue that it would be more accurately labelled as

the ‘inter-democracy nonaggression hypothesis.’3

Even in highly sensitive policy arenas, the United States has procedures such as the

Freedom of Information Act which is guarantee public access to information expected to be

relevant to the public interest. The situation for contractors in Iraq is quite different. Not all of

this is a matter of restriction. In many areas, the government simply does not or whether did

not collect data on contractors, so information about which Program Management Systems

Committee (National Defence Industrial Association) (PMSC) personnel are deployed, where,

and in what ways is or was de facto not available. Until quite recently, neither did the

government collect information about the overall number of contract employees, the number

of casualties, or how much it spends on contracts.4 That information is now collected, though

it is not as available as information about troops.5 For instance, when journalists sought access

to information about Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, and Root’s work to repair oil

fields in Iraq, significant portions of a Pentagon audit sent to the international monitoring

board were blacked out. The firm claimed that it was permissible to black out not only

2 See for instance, Freedom House, available athttp://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16, or Transparency International, available at research/surveysindices/cpi/2007.3 Daniele Archibugi, The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008

4 Government Accountability Office (GAO), report to Congress, “Rebuilding Iraq: Actions Needed to Improve Use of Private Security Providers,” (GAO-05-737), July 2005.5 The Department of Defense is now required to keep regular census numbers of contract employees in Iraq but that information is not publicized. See Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI), no. 3020.41,“Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces,” 3 October 2005, Section 4.5. and 6.2.6.

proprietary information but also statements “that we believe are factually incorrect or

misleading and could be used by a competitor to damage KBR’s ability to win and negotiate

new work.”6 Even when they are not abused, proprietary limits on information can reduce the

transparency of government policy. The government, in concert with PMSCs, has

successfully restricted the release of a wide variety of information.7

4. Democratic Culture and Society

There is an emerging question to understand that: ‘How do people will examine this

nonviolence, peaceful nature of democracy issues?’ Democracy can be the answer of it, but

sometimes there can be challenging or hard decisions to ignore this situation. There are two

other alternatives which explain the democracy issues. One is that with democratic institutions

comes a democratic culture of bargaining, compromise, and indulgence. And two, there is a

civil society of independent and interlinked institutions and groups that commonly composed

of churches, businesses, schools, and social, political, and recess groups which not only bond

likes chain with democratic society together, but also makes pressure on interests so that the

environment of a conflictual related things are not high, and they decrease the heavy burden

are isolated. Such a democratic culture and society also encompasses democratic nations,

enfolding them in a dynamic democratic field of cross national governmental and

nongovernmental organizations, multinational businesses, trade, cultural and educational

exchanges, which are similarly bond the nations together and cross pressure interest that

might favour violence. Moreover, the basic norm of negotiating and tolerating differences is

shared among democracies, which is one reason democracies cannot well negotiate with

dictatorship, to whom it is only war by other means.

5. The Cost of Democratic Peace Theory and Iraq War

The democratic peace theory, and US which show as a confirmation, sometimes it does not

exactly tell or show the use of force to Iraq into a democracy. Primarily, by itself, the basic

matter that democracies do not fight one another does not have any useful implications for the

foreign policymaker. Because it needs an additional premise, like the US can make Iraq into a

democracy at an acceptable cost, but which? The most important for why democracies do not 6 Erik Eckholm, “Now You See It: An Audit of KBR,” New York Times, 20 March 2005.7 The Los Angeles Times requested access to the data on reports of violent incidents by contractors but received only a heavily redacted version of the data that omitted the names of the security team members as well as the names of armed forces members and government employees. The newspaper filed suit in November 2005 but was unable to get access to the information. See David G. Savage, “U.S. Can Withhold Security Firm Data,” Los Angeles Times, 27 July 2006, for one of many similar stories.

declare war is accountability. Indeed, in a liberal democratic government whose officials

elected must be answered to the people in the form of free elections, which forces officials to

consider alternatives to war.

5.1. How Democratic Peace Theory Extended and Criticized ?

Iraq can be a good example of liberal states not being more peaceful than despotic countries.

The war may be understood as a measure of self-defence. Nevertheless, liberal states were

taking aggressive steps towards a foreign country invading it. The liberal democratic peace

theory can therefore in its extended form be criticized. Also, Kant depicted a war outside of

the foedum pacificum ‘league of peace’ which should be distinguished from and so his theory

may be violated in certain points but not altogether. Several explanations have been offered

why democracies rarely fight with each other, because democratic leaders must have

accountability to the voters for war, and therefore have an incentive to seek alternatives; that

such statesmen have practice settling matters by discussion or negotiation process, decide on

for the outcome of this process not by arms, and do the same in foreign policy; that

democracies view non-democracies as threatening, and go to war with them over issues which

would have been settled peacefully between democracies; and that democracies tend to be

wealthier than other countries, and the wealthy tend to avoid war, having more to lose, since

here again, it was not a liberal state fighting another one. On the contrary, the US has a

republican constitution and also was a member in the liberal pacific union which Kant argued8

the US domestic population and their institutions were not able to prevent the invasion.

There should be a republican constitution in order to prevent war and established a stable

democracy. It lightens the way or creates the framework of democratic peace theory. Because

governors need the consent of its citizens in order to gain legitimacy and citizens is required

in order to decide that war should be declared. On the contrary, which US show this as a proof

that, if a country do not have a republican constitution and the environment of the citizenship,

it will belonged to the ruler’s decision.

Despite the fact that US use this theory for justifying the war, the democratic peace theory

is based on an abundance of historical evidence that democracies almost never go to war with

each other. With the war in Iraq, however, democratic peace theory is facing major criticism.

8Immanuel Kant, ‘To Perpetual Peace’ In Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History, and Morals/ Immanuel Kant; Translated, with introduction by Ted Humphrey

For instance: although the UN did not confirm a resolution, the US together with its allies

went to invade Iraq in 2003 within the so called Operation Iraqi Freedom. Although the

military campaign was defended in the beginning with the threat of weapons of mass

destruction and the will to bring peace and democracy to Iraq, the non-interference principle

was violated. What’s more, UN as a powerful liberal institution was not able to prevent the

US to invade Iraq being also a member.

6. President Bush, Secretary Condoleezza Rice and Bill Clinton

President Bush’s speeches, it in the National Security Strategy, says, ‘‘Freedom is the non-

negotiable demand of human dignity; the birth right of every person or in every civilization.’’

The strategy is so emphatic because the administration embraces the theory of a ‘‘democratic

peace’’ the notion that liberal democracies are unlikely to use weapons of mass destructions,

sponsor terrorism, and undertake other activities that threaten their neighbours and the United

States. Therefore, the United States has a pivotal stake in enhancing the spread of

representative government.9 It describes as a real and true way of embracing and

implementing a theory is really a far more violent process. But, he does point us in the right

direction, namely, that democratic peace theory or more accurately the democratic peace

theory and its suitable theories lies at the heart of the Bush Doctrine’s emphasis on democracy

promotion.

So, which stated the above the reason why US fighting in Iraq and encourager democratic

freedom there and elsewhere? The answer is to promote an end to war, and demonise, and to

minimize internal political violence. In other words, it is to foster global human security.

Surely, this is worth fighting for.

US’s foreign policy has been claimed on the democratic peace theory. Secretary

Condoleezza Rice and Bush expressed their ideas by implementing and mentioning

democracy and democratic peace in their speeches. Moreover, Bill Clinton also gives

importance democratic peace while implementing his foreign policy.

The Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

9 Boot, Max. (2003) What Next? The Bush Foreign Policy Agenda beyond Iraq. The Weekly Standard, May 5, pp. 27–33.

‘After all, who truly believes, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that the status quo in the

Middle East was stable, beneficial and worth defending? How could it have been prudent to

preserve the state of affairs in a region that was incubating and exporting terrorism; where

the proliferation of deadly weapons was getting worse, not better; where authoritarian

regimes were projecting their failures onto innocent nations and peoples; where Lebanon

suffered under the boot heel of Syrian occupation; where a corrupt Palestinian Authority

cared more for its own preservation than for its people's aspirations; and where a tyrant such

as Saddam Hussein was free to slaughter his citizens, destabilize his neighbors and

undermine the hope of peace between Israelis and Palestinians? It is sheer fantasy to assume

that the Middle East was just peachy before America disrupted its alleged stability.

Had we believed this, and had we done nothing, consider all that we would have missed in

just the past year: A Lebanon that is free of foreign occupation and advancing democratic

reform. A Palestinian Authority run by an elected leader who openly calls for peace with

Israel. An Egypt that has amended its constitution to hold multiparty elections. A Kuwait

where women are now full citizens. And, of course, an Iraq that in the face of a horrific

insurgency has held historic elections, drafted and ratified a new national charter, and will

go to the polls again in coming days to elect a new constitutional government.’10

“Democracy and the hope and progress it brings are the alternative to instability and to

hatred and terror. Lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance,” the American

president underlined in a speech at London’s Whitehall Palace in November 2003 following

the fall of Baghdad.

If democratisation and peace promotion supported by capitalism by US, there can be severe

problems of implementation occur. As the United States is finding currently in Iraq, but at

least politicians may pick the target countries. If capitalism spreads by the sheer power of

example, then this implies that the locals and their usually autocratic rulers decide the pace of

events. The democratic peace proposition may be married to a crusading sprit, as has been

deplored by the most famous proponent of the democratic peace.11

7. Democracies Do not Start Wars

10 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901711.html11 Bruce Russett, “Bushwacking the Democratic Peace”, International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 6,No. 4 (2005).

Another important link between the war in Iraq and the Democratic Peace shows the idea

that US's military intervention somehow shows the idea that democracies do not start wars.

the threat was real or only perceived, a majority of the American population and the officials

they elected believed in good faith that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to American security.

All available evidence most gruesomely the videos of Kurdish refugees having been gassed

by weapons of mass destruction-tends to support that idea, and the evidence is still being

collected. Despite this threat, despite possessing the most lethal military in the history of the

world sure to win a relatively easy victory, despite the raw wounds in the American psyche

still left open since September 11, and despite an electorate generally supportive of the war

effort and a unified-party government, America still deliberated for almost eighteen months

before a single soldier set foot on Iraqi soil. Even then, it was not a unilateral action but an

effort of contributions to varying degrees by nearly fifty nations. Steps taken to ensure the

safety of innocent Iraqi citizens were unparalleled in the history of warfare, and while not fail-

proof they rightly preserved untold numbers of people. Indeed, far from refuting the

'Democratic Peace,' the war in Iraq might be one of the best offers of proof for its underlying

truth.

8. The Purpose for Foreign Policy of US

The final and most important of these observations is that the promoters of democracy must

not yield in the face of setbacks, be they military, political, or theoretical. There will always

be bad persons who wish to ignore human beings the freedom they were granted by birth

right. Those who wish to see them claimed again and again that freedom must not relent.

There will always be honest and well-meaning scholars, indifferent moral relativists, and self-

interested tyrants who will for different reasons dismiss the idea that democracy is inherently

just and peaceful. Adherents to the 'Democratic Peace' in whatever future incarnation it might

take must not give the floor, so to speak, but dictate the terms of the debate.

The purpose for foreign policy of US is straightforward. Indeed, The United States and also

other international actors who try to establish democracy or human rights need to continue to

promote democracy. However, they must seek to help democratizing states implement

reforms in the correct order. In particular, popular elections should not to precede the building

of institutions that will control the bad intention incentives for politicians to call for war.

In still democracy in the whole world on the basis of American foreign policy is

shaped. Democratic peace theory, democracies do not fight with each other and according to

this thesis emphasizes on the basis of a peaceful world is to create a world composed

of democratic countries. Which form the basis of American foreign policy on a foundation

of American foreign policy is shaped in still democracy in the whole wide world. Democratic

peace theory, democracies do not fight with each other and according to

this thesis emphasizes on the basis of a peaceful world is to create a world composed

of democratic countries. Which form the basis of American foreign policy? America, for

the market economy places great emphasis on the promotion of

democracy, because peace, democracy and the economy’s integrated relationship between

them is absolute. Contemporary discourse on the democratization process of the region is in

the fact that the heart of the Middle East problem. Moreover, democratization trends in

the countries of the region is consisted on a phobia and terror in the name of the

world peace and world order in America's increasing interest in the region. In

this framework, announced by the Bush administration's "Greater Middle East Initiative" in

the set as the ultimate goal of regional democratic reforms. Understanding

the differences in the implementation of democracy and the small pieces by the force of the

general situation.  Iraq Government adopted the draft which stated Iraqi Oil Law in Iraq has

been accepted by the Assembly, so the Iraqi democracy will be successfully passed exam

when it passed.

9. Conclusion

In summary, it can be said that war, external influences and the economically more

advanced in terms of the democratic community of nations, the possibility

of diminishing, even as an extension of the legitimate policy consideration is the shape of a

phenomenon, even harder. War in these countries as a last resort, but will never be allowed to

occur is perceived as a way of life. On the other hand, scholars such as Barry Buzan, such

assisting on top of that, "area of peace" policies beyond being "state of war" may have

started to resemble. What’s more, Democratic peace theory, states would be deprived

of political disputes, not only for their relation is not based on perception of war is far

from advocating violence. Insome democratic countries,more weak and authoritarian countrie

s such as Iraq, regime change, even if they are prone to use force to go to their own citizens to

justify the intervention of their obligation to hear the multilateral consent.

,

,

REFERANCES

Bernard Finel and Kristin Lord, “The Surprising Logic of Transparency,” International tudies Quarterly 43, no. 2 (June 1999): 315–39. See 316.

Boot, Max. (2003) What Next? The Bush Foreign Policy Agenda beyond Iraq. The Weekly Standard, May 5, pp. 27–33

Bruce Russett, “Bushwacking the Democratic Peace”, International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 6,No. 4 (2005).

Daniele Archibugi, The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008.

Erik Eckholm, “Now You See It: An Audit of KBR,” New York Times, 20 March 2005.

Government Accountability Office (GAO), report to Congress, “Rebuilding Iraq: Actions Needed to Improve Use of Private Security Providers,” (GAO-05-737), July 2005.

Kant, I. (2007) Perpetual Peace Minneapolis: Filiquarian Publishing

Kant, ‘To Perpetual Peace’ In Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History, and Morals/ Immanuel Kant; Translated, with introduction by Ted Humphrey

RAY, JAMES LEE. (2003) A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Programme: Does It Falsify Realism (or Neorealism)? In Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

The Department of Defence is now required to keep regular census numbers of contract employees in Iraq but that information is not publicized. See Department of Defence Instruction (DoDI), no. 3020.41, “Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces,” 3 October 2005, Section 4.5. and 6.2.6.

The Los Angeles Times requested access to the data on reports of violent incidents by contractors but received only a heavily redacted version of the data that omitted the names of the security team members as well as the names of armed forces members and government employees. The newspaper filed suit in November 2005 but was unable to get access to the information. See David G. Savage, “U.S. Can Withhold Security Firm Data,” Los Angeles Times, 27 July 2006, for one of many similar stories.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901711.html

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16, or Transparency International, available at research/surveysindices/cpi/2007.