A University of Hawai’i political science professor explains why he thinks Iraq is the right war, at the right time.

Was Bush Right? By R. J. Rummel Ph.D.

I have been increasingly disappointed with the poll results on our war in Iraq. In December 2003, 63% of people in a CBS/New York Times poll thought the war was the right thing to do when asked, “Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U. S. Have stayed out?” Only 31% thought we should have stayed out.

However, in December 2005, just before the Iraqi election, the split was down to 48 to 48. By then, Democrats were turning against continuing the occupation, with Democrat National Committee chairman Howard Dean saying thet the “idea that we’re going to win in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.” Other notable Democrats called for either immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal. (See HJ Commentary 1)

The urge to end the war is powerful and understandable. People look at the cost of trying to nurture a democracy in Iraq and naturally ask, “What’s in it for us?” “What does this have to do with American security?” “Is it worth the deaths of more than 2,2000 American soldiers?”

By now some 10,000 military personnel fromHawai’i have served in Iraq. More than 1.000 are there right now. This August. About 7,000 more soldiers will deploy to Iraq. These very questions keep many of us in the islands up at night.

Why am I disappointed by the steady decline in support for the war? Because I believe President George W. Bush is right to stay the course in Iraq. My views come from a lifetime of studying totalitarian regimes–of which Hussein’s Iraq was certainly one–and the profound ways in which they threaten humanity. Success in Iraq would have equally profound and positive benefits for the world. This is omething I wish more people understood, and what I hope to explain here.

THE DEMOCRATIC PEACE
It has been three years since the United States invaded Iraq–with the support of 49 nations, with specific Congressional approval, and under UN Security Resolution 1441–to eliminate the threat posed by Hussein. No one has forgotten that the administration based its urgency for the invasion on the belief that Hussein possessed, or could easily assemble, weapons of mass destruction which could threaten the region. (See HJ Commentary 1)

Because these weapons have not been uncovered, manycritics of the war have come to see America’s attempt to foster democracy in Iraq as a post hoc justification for the war. This view disregards that liberating the Iraqi people was always a central component of Bush’s plan (just one more of many components), second only to thwarting Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction ambitions. In his speech on the eve of the March 20, 2003 invasion, Bush spoke repeatedly of “helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country,” of “restoring control of that country to its own people.

Nor is Bush’s interest in democratization limited to Iraq. Speaking to reporters in 2004 about his insistence that the Palestinian authority also become democratic, Bush explained, “The reason why I’m so strong on democracy is democracies don’t go to war with each other ... I’ve got great faith in democracies to promote peace.”

In other words, he had faith in what is called by students of international relations the democratic peace. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made this connection explicit in her December 11, 2005, Washington Post article, “The promise of Democratic Peace.”

This is the goal worth pursuing, that one makes Iraq the right war, at the right time. The long-term benefits of a democratized Iraq are inherently beneficial, to the Iraqi people, to the region and to us. This is because the theory of democratic peace simply works.
_________________________________________________________________________

INTERNATIONAL WARS 1816-2005

BELLIGERANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WARS (AT LEAST 1,000 KILLED)

Democracies vs. Democracies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

Democracies vs. Nondemocracies . . . . . . . . . . 166

Nondemocracies vs. Nondemocracies . . . . . . . . 205

Sources: Melvin Small and J. David Singer, SIPRI, PRIO, Monty Marshal, R. J. Rummel.
________________________________________________________________________

We know from research done over the last three decades that this is true. The table above shows that, since 1816–the end of the Napoleonic Wars–there have been no wars between two democracies, although there were 371 bilateral wars.

Since 1816, there have been only three cases of violence between democracies that ended in deaths. Two of these involved Peru and Ecuador. In 1981, Peru was only marginally democratic, as was Ecuador, but less so. This was also true of Peru and Ecuador in 1984. The only other case of violence over these nearly two centuries was marginally democratic Ecuador (initiator) vs. the United States, in 1954. Only three cases and none since 1984, despite there being122 electoral democracies today, 89 of them liberal democracies whose people have civil liberties and political rights.

There is much more to the democratic peace than avoiding war or international violence. Democracies have been involved in many wars, some they launched themselves (America’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq being the most recent examples). However, by an order of magnitude or more, democracies fight the least severe wars, in terms of numbers killed, compared to authoritarian or totalitarian regimes.

Moreover, on the average, democratic nations are the most internally peaceful–they have the least violence in numbers killed in rebellions, civil wars, civil unrest, anti-government riots, violent strikes and coups.
Perhaps most importantly, democracies seldom murder their own citizens. Democide (genocide and mass murder) is an evil of militarism (as in Burma), monarchism (Russia’s Peter the Great), theocratism (Iran), fascism (Hitler), and communism. (The last two are typical examples of socialist dictatorships) Over the whole 20th century, governments–almost all nondemocracies–murdered about 262 million people, eight times the number killed in combat in all the last century’s international and domestic wars.

In stark comparison to this horrible cost of dictatorships, no liberal democracy has systematically murdered its own people.

Saddam Hussein is up among the mega-murderers. He murdered close to a million Kurds, Sinnis and Shiites, and launched a war against Iran in which probably a million more died. Hussein and his form of government, regardless of its armament, were themselves threats to peace and security, and a proven disaster for the people of Iraq.

BUILDING THE DEMOCRATIC PEACE IN IRAQ
Of course, the democratic peace doesn’t just happen on its own. It takes hard work. Although baghdad fell to coalition forces within three weeks of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Hussein himself was captured in December of that year, the path to democracy and stability in the country has been a long complicated one.
As the Bush administration did in Afghanistan, in Iraq it helped Iraqis rebuild and develop their country economically, and create from scratch a new army and security force. The United States has also helped them democratize, as it successfully did with Germany and Japan after world war II. Here are the four major events in that peace process thus far.

1) On June 28, 2004 Bush transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government which prepared for a national election of a transition government whose onmly purpose was to write a constitution.

2) In January 2005, the Iraqis voted this government into temporary power and, with much conflict, bargaining and negotiation, it wrote a constitution.

3) In an October referendum, Iraqis approved this constitution.

4) In December, under the new constitution and for the first time ever, Iraqis voted in a national, competitive election for a democratic government.

About 70% of iraqis turned out to vote and, according to foreign election observers and the United Nations, it was a fair election meeting international standards.

When you and I vote, we drive to a local elementary school, then safely and easily mark our choices. No one assassinates election workers, or threatens to murder voters simply for showing up. This hasn’t been the case for ordinary Iraqis, who have taken great risks to hold and participate in elections. Throughout Iraq’s pursuit of the democratic peace, there has been bloody opposition by foreign terrorists, who saw the American occupation of iraq as an opportunity to defeat American power, and who especially understood that a Muslim democracy in the Middle East threatened their ambitions to spread a fundamentalist theocracy.

Even more powerful opposition ha scome from Sunni insurrectionists, those who had most benefitted from Hussein’s rule (he is a Sunni himself). Every one of their roadside bombs directed against American forces is specifically meant to make those of us at home second guess our presence in Iraq in support of democratization. Judging from the poll results I opened with, the attacks have indeed taken their toll on our will to see through the reconstruction of Iraq as a functional democracy.

Nonetheless, Bush has refused to withdraw. He is convinced of the rightness of what he calls the Forward Strategy of Freedom and this war as I am.

IRAQ IN THE BIG PICTURE
On November 6, 2003, in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, Bush proclaimed his Forward Strategy of Freedom. Although focused on the Middle East, it was general in tone. He stated that, “As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace.” He emphasized that, “There are ... essential principals common to every successful society, in every culture.

“Successful societies limit the power of the stste and the power of the military–so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite.

“Successful societies protect freedom with the consistent and impartial rule of law, instead of selectively applying the law to punish political opponents.

“Successful societies grauntee religious liberty–the right to serve and honor God without fear of persecution.

“Successful societies privatize their economies, and secure the rights of property. They prohibit and punish official corruption and invest in the health and education of their people. They recognize the rights of women.

“And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people.”

These principals provide the foundation for the president’s new foreign policy–new in the sense that he had not so clearly articulated it before. He committed the United States to promote and foster freedom, and he put dictators on notice that they will no longer be “excused and accommodated.”

Two days after the speech, as if to double underline it, the president issued a proclaimation naming November 9 World Freedom Day. He proclaimed: “Fourteen years ago, freedom-loving people tore down the Berlin Wall and began to set a nation free from Communist oppression. On World Freedom Day, the United States joins with other countries in commemorating that historic day. The United Dtates is committed to liberty, freedom and the universal struggle for human rights. We strive to advance peace and demoracy and to safeguard these ideals around the world.”

So, why are we fighting in Iraq and fostering democratic freedom there and elsewhere? The answer is to promote an end to war, democide and famine, and to minimize internal political violence. In other words, it is to foster global human security.

Surely, creating a world in which there will never be a war or democide is in the American national interest, the vital interest of our children, and is worth fighting and dying for.

R. J. Rummel Ph.D. is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. He has published 32 books, received a number of awards for his contributions, and has been frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. His Web site is at www.hawaii.edu/powerkills and he keeps a daily blog at http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com.

Closing comments by Howard Johnson:

This factual presentation (proveable facts) is in stark contrast to the constant emotionally charged stream of non-facts being presented to the American people by the likes of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelozi and Ted Kennedy along with their dupes in the media who revel in their power to sway ignorant people to follow their agenda. I believe the real reason Democrats are so vocal against the war and blame every national problem (including natural disasters) on George Bush is twofold. First and foremost, American success in creating a democratic Iraq would so enhance Republican prestige and so damage Democrats and liberals in particular that a major shift to Republican political power would result. Democrats will do anything to prevent that from happening including scuttle America and aid totalitarianism in the world. Liberal Democrats are working diligently to destroy every valiant effort made by those who founded this country to promote freedom and democracy and protect us from our own government including our Constitution.

HJ commentary 1: This was a purely political effort aimed at discrediting America and the Bush administration in order to gain political advantage and power. Democrats seem to want to do as much damage to America and the cause of freedom and democracy in the world as is possible by blatant lies and deceptions. Aided by their biased, liberal, "drunk with power" fellow travelers in the media, liberal Democrats have mounted an unprecedented hate campaign of destruction against everything good America has stood for in the world including being the champion of democratic freedom and the "Guardian of Democracy." Apparently they believe they can regain power by working to destroy America and obliterate our influence in the world. They have done more to aid Al Queda, despotism and dictatorship in the world than those forces could possibly have done by themselves. This is to me a concentrated effort to destroy freedom and democracy and prevent peoples all over the world from enjoying peace and freedom. Hitler’s NAZIs and Stalin’s NKVD were far less effective if a bit more brutal.

The Bush message the media has forgotten or deliberately ignored are the numerous points (I believe there were seventeen) submitted to the United Nations in the original request for action against Saddam Hussein. The only one of those points ever mentioned in the media and the centerpiece of Democrat hate rhetoric is the WMDs mantra. Occasionally they mention one other point, his support and aid for Al Queda, but that one has pretty well been proven accurate by now. As to the lack of discovery of WMDs, why did the media ignore the discovery of MIG 25s buried in the desert sand? These advanced Soviet aircraft are clearly effective weapons of Mass destruction. All other WMD evidence discovered was either declared invalid, inconclusive or was completely ignored by our "objective" news media.

Some additional HJ commentary not directly related:
The intellectual elite who arm themselves against any thought that differs in direction or intent from their own tightly held beliefs are the blind driving force behind the "anti-war" crowd. These closed minds ignore the hundreds of millions slaughtered because of reluctance to engage in or even accept "constructive" or "preventive" wars against tyrants. They are like Neville Chamberlain who on September 30, 1938 reported on the Munich agreement saying, "My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time." How wrong he was then and how wrong the anti-war forces are now in precisely the same vein regarding Iraq. Should we pull out of Iraq now without establishing a democracy will the Muslim hordes do to Europe and America what they repeatedly did in India and what they promise to do now in all their rhetoric? History will provide the answer.

Some loosely related quotes from Stephen Jay Gould:

The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question.

Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic world view - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty.

These quotes of Eric Hoffer from many years ago still ring true and surely will always:

What the intellectual craves above all else is to be taken seriously, to be treated as a decisive force in shaping history. He is far more at home in a society that weighs his every word and keeps close watch on his attitudes than in a society that cares not what he says or does. He would rather be persecuted than ignored.

Every extreme attitude is a flight from the self.

The untalented are more at ease in a society that gives them valid alibis for not achieving than in one where opportunities are abundant. In an affluent society, the alienated who clamor for power are largely untalented people who cannot make use of the unprecedented opportunities for self-realization, and cannot escape the confrontation with an ineffectual self.

There are many who find a good alibi far more attractive than an achievement. For an achievement does not settle anything permanently. We still have to prove our worth anew each day: we have to prove that we are as good today as we were yesterday. But when we have a valid alibi for not achieving anything we are fixed, so to speak, for life. Moreover, when we have an alibi for not writing a book, painting a picture, and so on, we have an alibi for not writing the greatest book and not painting the greatest picture. Small wonder that the effort expended and the punishment endured in obtaining a good alibi often exceed the effort and grief requisite for the attainment of a most marked achievement.