Is Military Force the Only Solution to Promote Democracy in the Middle East?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter N_Quire
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether military force is the only viable solution to promote democracy in the Middle East. Participants explore various perspectives on the justification for military interventions, the implications of such actions, and alternative approaches to democratization.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the war in Iraq is justified as a means to liberate the country from dictatorship and promote democracy, drawing parallels to historical wars of liberation.
  • Others express skepticism about the motives behind military action, suggesting that it appears more like bullying rather than a genuine effort to promote democracy, especially given the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.
  • One participant questions the consistency of the U.S. approach, pointing out that if the war was truly about weapons of mass destruction, the ultimatum given to Saddam Hussein contradicts that narrative.
  • There are references to historical examples, such as Stalin's justification for military actions, to illustrate the potential misuse of the "liberation" narrative.
  • Some participants propose that military force should be a last resort, advocating for alternative methods of democratization, such as diplomacy and peaceful transformations, citing examples from South Africa and Kenya.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of military interventions on allied nations in the region, suggesting a more nuanced approach is necessary.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the effectiveness and morality of using military force to promote democracy. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to democratization in the Middle East.

Contextual Notes

Participants express various assumptions about the motivations behind military actions and the potential outcomes of such interventions, highlighting the complexity of international relations and the differing perspectives on democracy promotion.

N_Quire
As I see it, this war is not so much about Al Qaeda or because of a direct threat to the United States.

The United States and its allies is waging war to liberate Iraq from its dictator, bring democracy to the region and eliminate weapons of mass destruction which might do harm to America's allies in the Middle East or (indirectly) reach the hands of terrorist groups.

I think this war of liberation it is justified. The Left used to love and romanticize wars of national liberation. They worshipped such figures as Che Guevara who was prepraed to take the revolution worldwide. They loved Cuba for its willingness to send troops to Angola to help the national liberation struggle there.

The Left should also like President Bush's idealism and desire to bring democracy to countries suffering under dictatorship. But of course they don't. The far left has always defended tyranny against capitalist democracy.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If there was an multinational consensus consisting of dozens of nations to bring representative government to the world's people, then I would be for that.

However, with the current expressed motives of defense against Iraq and terrorists, it is a different case. People just aren't buying that crap, and it seems like bullying. This, combined with the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is setting a bad Worldscape (copyright 2003 Dan ). In a few years or so, if the things that I foresee happening to not come to pass, I think that I will admit that I was wrong.
 
Biological weapons = Bug bombs (copyright, N_Quire)
 
J. Stalin also said that it was war to liberate the people when he attacked Finland 1939.
 
Originally posted by Baikonur
J. Stalin also said that it was war to liberate the people when he attacked Finland 1939.

The Fins had not repeatedly rebelled against their leadership. The Fins fought back against the Russians. The Fins did not greet Russian soldiers with great joy and enthusiasm. Sixteen percent of the Finnish people had not fled Finland out of fear and repression before the Russians invaded.

Njorl
 
Greetings !
Originally posted by Baikonur
J. Stalin also said that it was war to liberate the people when he attacked Finland 1939.
Isn't there an agreement or something for
mentors not to express extreme and radical
views on the forums. Your messages are too
much really !

Live long and prosper.
 
The United States and its allies is waging war to liberate Iraq from its dictator

I agree with this much at least of what you said. Indeed it was ironic that after all his posturing about weapons of mass destruction that in the final moments before the attack Bush gave Hussein an ultimatum to avoid war by leaving Iraq. Doesn't that final ultimatum prove the lie? All along it was never about WMD. It was only about removing the leader of another country that Bush disapproved of. If it was really about WMD then why give an ultimatum to the leader of another country to go into exile or face an invasion? If Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction that would not change by Hussein leaving.

Naturally the US and its allies will now invade the following countries to liberate them from their dictator(s):

Saudi Arabia
Syria
China
North Korea
Kuwait
Zimbabwe
Burma
Libya
Oh dear, my hand is getting tired.

Laser Eyes
 
Lazer Eyes,
Your list of countries does illustrate a number of problems which need to be tackled, but military force is only one of many options and is a last resort even for President Bush.
Bush and his idealogues would like to see a democratization of the entire middle east and they, perhaps naively, think the liberation of Iraq will create a desire for freedom and democracy throughout the region.
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and a few others in the region are our allies so they should not be transformed by force. The Americans are prepared to accept a slower transformation in those countries.
Everyone wants Mugabe to go but an invasion is not necessary. In that part of the world, the peaceful transformation and democratization of South Africa and Kenya are powerful examples. But I don't think too much violence from Mugabe will be tolerated. Maybe the United Nations has a role there.
North Korea will be dealt with by diplomacy.
Each problem has its own solution. This is a cyncial world of realpolitik where self-interest is important. Because we invade Iraq does not mean we will invade and overthrow every dictator.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K