Yet the involvement in Afghanistan makes things more difficult in Pakistan.
The U.S. is perceived as an ally of India. Tensions have increased between India and Pakistan since the Mumbai attacks. Again, President Bush’s go-ahead to India’s nuclear ambitions makes things more dangerous, too.
The brutality of the U.S. operation in Afghanistan is both visible and repellent to Pakistanis — particularly the large number of civilian deaths due to air strikes.
Pakistanis also find the widespread corruption of the Afghan government abhorrent, e.g.,
Want to be a provincial police chief? It will cost you $100,000.
Want to drive a convoy of trucks loaded with fuel across the country? Be prepared to pay $6,000 per truck, so the police will not tip off the Taliban.
Need to settle a lawsuit over the ownership of your house? About $25,000, depending on the judge.
kbuschsays
There are a lot of warlords involved in the government. The recent election has only increased their power. The New York Times from August 7 reports on the following:
Marshal Muhammad Qasim Fahim, a Tajik warlord, now first VP on Karzai’s ticket
Gen. Abdul Rahid Dostum, the Uzbeck commander accused of massive murder of prisoners
Hajji Muhammad Moheqiq & Karim Khalili, warlords from the Hazara Shiite ethnic minority
Their opponent, Abdul Rab Rassoul Sayyaf.
Gul Agha Sherzai, guilty of drug-related corruption in Nangarhar Province who will possibly become Governor of Kandahar
p>Andrew Bacevich at the end of last year takes a very opposite view. To him, democracy is unachievable:
Moreover, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan possesses almost none of the prerequisites of modernity; its literacy rate, for example, is 28 percent, barely a third of Iraq’s. In terms of effectiveness and legitimacy, the government in Kabul lags well behind Baghdad — not exactly a lofty standard. Apart from opium, Afghans produce almost nothing the world wants. While liberating Iraq may have seriously reduced the reservoir of U.S. power, fixing Afghanistan would drain it altogether.
He advocates the opposite policy: encourage the warlords:
The new U.S. president needs to realize that America’s real political objective in Afghanistan is actually quite modest: to ensure that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda can’t use it as a safe haven for launching attacks against the West. Accomplishing that won’t require creating a modern, cohesive nation-state. U.S. officials tend to assume that power in Afghanistan ought to be exercised from Kabul. Yet the real influence in Afghanistan has traditionally rested with tribal leaders and warlords. Rather than challenge that tradition, Washington should work with it. Offered the right incentives, warlords can accomplish U.S. objectives more effectively and more cheaply than Western combat battalions. The basis of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan should therefore become decentralization and outsourcing, offering cash and other emoluments to local leaders who will collaborate with the United States in excluding terrorists from their territory.
This is somewhat like the Sunni Awakening strategy in Iraq. The gentle reader will recall that even Viagra was used to, er, sway some of the tribal chiefs.
… with regard to democracy building is the bootstrapping that this requires in a place like Afghanistan. The institutions that a democracy is supposed to underpin, are in turn the underpinnings of a democracy. The institutions aren’t really there to lend institutional weight that the democratic characteristics of any government require. The institution of the democratic method isn’t strong enough to lend weight to the elected institutions.
<
p>The civic institutions are supposed to define the rules and context and collective will that serve to keep the actors within (and without) the institutions, if not on the same page, at least with a set of well defined limits. That is, if the institutions are strong, splintering outside of ‘the rules’ will be less likely. One of those rules is the democratic process,… which is why and how such institutions, with enough cultural gravitas, can serve to ensure the integrity of democratic processes as they are acted out (as opposed to just as they are on paper).
<
p>It’s a terrible bootstrap problem.
kbuschsays
Currently, the involvement in Afghanistan costs $2 billion per month. That’s a lot of money. For many years, as Matt Yglesias documents voices on the left were arguing for a larger commitment of troops and forces to Afghanistan, e.g., 100,000 from the outset. Many were warning that Afghanistan would pass a point of no return a couple years ago. So one problem with a surge now is that it would still be insufficient. As Richard Haass argues:
The risk of ending our military effort in Afghanistan is that Kabul could be overrun and the government might fall. The risk of the current approach (or even one that involves dispatching another 10,000 or 20,000 American soldiers, as the president appears likely to do) is that it might produce the same result in the end, but at a higher human, military and economic cost.
So while it might be true that Afghanistan could be turned around with a commitment of more troops, the turn-around might require ten times as many troops as we’re committing.
kbuschsays
“Why aren’t we criticizing Obama?” “Won’t this become Obama’s Vietnam?” “Don’t you liberals care about casualties?”
<
p>
Uh, this whole discussion is a criticism of the Obama Administration. Certainly the film Rethink Afghanistan that is supported by a number of netroots groups is critical of Administration policy. Nonetheless, there is a qualitative difference between Bush policy in Iraq say and Obama’s in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration told the U.S. public that the Iraq effort would require a minimum of funds and effort, that they knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were hidden, and that the occupation would be “self-funding”. They also resisted planning for the occupation for fear of jeopardizing their selling of the war. It is for these reasons that clear-thinking people are harsher on the Bush Administration Iraq policy than Obama Administration Afghanistan policy. The Bush Administration improvised in Iraq; the Obama Administration may be wrong but they’re sincerely trying to get it right.
Vietnam? Sure it might. In both cases, we’re on the side of a weak kleptocracy that would collapse without us. We’re also too keen to solve a political problem militarily. I think this is typical of all low intensity conflicts, however.
The interested reader should look at the ongoing series IGTNT on Daily Kos. This series did not go silent after January 20 nor did anyone tell it to hush up. There is another false equivalence here: the Bush Administration used to prevent photographs of coffins from being taken and remains were often returned at odd and difficult hours. Again, we were told before the war, with great certainty, that the Iraq invasion would be cheap and quick, the occupation short and straightforward.
bostonshepherdsays
Isn’t this where we’re going with this? What then?
<
p>A garrisoned military strategy is exact what didn’t work for the Soviets.
<
p>The 9/11 plot was hatched there, carried out from there, terrorists trained there. OBL, Mullah Omar and Kalid Sheik Muhammad operated from Afghanistan (and Pakistan).
<
p>Are you suggesting we abandon this region and allow it to become, once again, a base of operations which may lead to another 9/11?
kbuschsays
Precisely the question Prof. Walt is raising is whether Afghanistan would return to becoming a safe haven for Al Qaeda — even if the Taliban were to regain power. I have sympathy for the hypothesis you assert so forcefully, but it’s just that. A hypothesis. We’re spending $2 billion a month, irritating Pakistan, and losing who knows how many lives in support of it.
<
p>Time for the auditors.
jconwaysays
I have to agree with Col. Bacevich that democracy building would be a complete waste of time, manpower, blood, and treasure. No other great power has ever successfully conquered, occupied, and subdued Afghanistan. It has been a nation that has been tribally governed for over two thousand years and America is not going to change that.
<
p>I just cannot understand for the life of me why President Obama is advancing the same nation building neoconservative fantasy of spreading democracy? We wasted billions in Iraq trying to build schools, infrastructure, and healthcare for people that did not want them and refused to support our efforts to Westernize and democratize them. It was only after Gen. Petraeus advocated making deals with their tribal warlords and advanced the attainable goal of stability rather than the fantastical goal of democracy that we were able to lay the foundations for a relatively peaceful and strategic withdrawal from the country. I don’t understand why we can’t just leave behind a small footprint of special forces and intel forces to hunt down AQ and OBL and just give enough money to prop up Karzai’s forces?
<
p>Bacevich makes a compelling case for why the Afghan war as we are currently pursuing it is unwinnable in the most recent Commonweal front page article and I have to say his points make sense. Stopping the Taliban, spreading democracy and women’s rights, these are just goals that are simply unfeasible for the US military in its current state and goals that do not in any capacity substantially improve the security of the US.
<
p>Richard Haas is normally a respectable voice in the foreign policy community, but his assertion that a withdrawal will lead to the Taliban occupying the whole country is simply ridiculous. The Pashtun warlords not to mention the Afghan elite that returned to power and prominence with the US invasion are completely unwilling to relinquish or share power with the Taliban and so long as we arm those forces they can hold them off. I see no reason why we should directly fight their civil war for them since I am skeptical that the Taliban in its current capacity can ever exert total authority over the country again and its also decoupled from AQ which is currently based out of Pakistan instead.
<
p>The only reason I can see for Obama’s needless escalation of the war is political expediency. George Bush lost the war when he invaded Iraq but Obama does not want the aftermath of that loss to occur on his watch. This desire is surprisingly reminiscent of the mindset of LBJ and Nixon who both inherited a war they personally despised and admitted to their closest confidants was unwinnable but escalated anyway to save face. I hope and pray Obama does not repeat that mistake.
<
p>Vietnam was a war of choice, with AQ dismantled and scattered about, retreating into Pakistan, one could argue Afghanistan has turned into one as well.
christophersays
…the better off we all are. Assisting a nation in building a stable democracy is the OPPOSITE of subduing it.
somervilletomsays
In order for democracy to function, it requires:
<
p>1. A literate electorate, and
2. An electorate that understands and embraces western rationalism
<
p>Neither is present in Afghanistan. I’m not suggesting, in any way, that we should impede a home-grown movement towards democracy. I am stating that attempting to impose western-style democracy on the Afghan people is surely a prescription for failure.
jconwaysays
This is not an assertion based forum it is an evidence based forum. Where is your evidence for democracy building abroad actually improving the peace and security of the United States?
<
p>I mean certainly I am a proponent of democracy for moral reasons since I want everyone to be safe and free. But those reasons have no correlation with the national security interests of the United States.
<
p>And no we are no ‘assisting’ Afghanistan in building a stable democracy we are forcing that system upon a nation that has never had any kind of stable centralized government, let alone a democratic one. And that is simply unrealistic foreign policy that is bound to fail, make our country less safe, make Afghanistan less safe, and kill our soldiers and waste our money needlessly all based on your lovely moral assertion that democracy is good.
<
p>Some countries work better without democracy and have no intention to become democratic. I say let the US continue to be the worlds beacon for freedom, if other countries wish to emulate us and request our assistance in forming naturally evolving democratic institutions like Russia and former Soviet countries did in the 90s that’s great and we should help them. Using military force to militantly spread democracy is antithetical to a sound national security strategy and frankly antithetical to the founders vision. We are not a revolutionary state exporting its ideology abroad.
christophersays
I’m not aware of any full-fledged democracies going to war with each other. The closest I can come up with is the War of 1812, but both sides still left much to be desired on the democratic front. In an international politics class in school there was even a reference made to what was dubbed “the Golden Arches theory of international relations” which basically said that no countries, both of which have McDonalds and thus can be shown to be somewhat sympathetic to western values, have never engaged in sustained conflict. Sorry, but all the historical evidence suggests to me that democracy=peace, but I want to be clear that I am in no way advocating force against every undemocratic nation solely for the purpose of making them democracies. I only adhere to the Wilsonian view that we should do everything within our power to “make the world safe for democracy”. The extent to which we’re helping Afghanistan along is simply a byproduct of our security-related involvement there.
p>Also, I’m not convinced 1982 UK would be any less motivated to take the Falklands were Argentina a more established democracy.
<
p>Modern Georgia and Russia are ostensibly democracies, yes?
kbuschsays
In 1939, Germany was pretty far from being a democracy; back in 1914, it was much closer to being one. Surely, France and Britain were.
<
p>Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan have not been free of conflict and they are at least nominally democracies. How about India and Pakistan?
christophersays
Definitely not a democracy by that point. Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933 and I believe by 1939 had banned opposition parties. The Weimar Republic was a democracy on paper, but lacked the cultural commitment, which is what gave the Nazis their opening.
<
p>Russia’s claim to democracy under Putin has been questionable at best.
jconwaysays
From my own extensive experience in IR relations theory having taken classes from Mearsheimer, DPTs biggest opponent, and Charles Lipson who wrote the book on DPT, my own conclusion is that DPT proponents constantly modify the definition of ‘war’ and ‘democracy’ so that the evidence fits the theory. I’d prefer the theory fit the evidence, and not the other way around.
<
p>Goldenarches theory was recently disproved by the Georgian conflict, and earlier by the first Persian Gulf War.
<
p>I would argue the Kargil War, the Lebanon Wars, the Gaza war, and the wars over Cyprus are all examples of DPT failing. The latter portion of WWI and the Falkland war also meet the example.
<
p>But I will give you the benefit of a doubt. If we define ‘liberal democracy’ as a system of government with broad civil liberties, universal franchise, and serious checks and balances and if we define ‘war’ as any sustained conflict incurring more than 500 casualties (the UNs definition btw) then our field is significantly limited to the past 50 years of international politics which in my view is too small of a time frame to prove the theory’s validity. Additionally within that field we have developments that offer a reason why the countries that fit the category of ‘liberal democracy’ have not fought.
<
p>Here is a testable, provable fact. No two NATO nations have gone to war. No two EU nations have gone to war. No two NAFTA organizations have gone to war. No two WTO members have gone to war. The rise of globalization, collective security, and economic/international trade agreements has decreased war amongst the great powers-not liberal democracy.
<
p>Furthermore this subset includes states that would be unlikely to go to war anyway such as Mexico and Britain, etc.
<
p>Lastly recent examples of Greece and Turkey nearly going to war over Cyprus, and Colombia and Venezuela nearly going to war, are all examples IMHO that a) democracies are not any less likely to fight amongst themselves and b) when they don’t fight it is due to things besides their governing system. In the case of Greece and Turkey it was internal politics that brought them back from the brink. In the case of Venezuela it was economic reliance on Colombia.
<
p>So DPT to me seems like a theory that is not testable, which makes it an article of faith or belief, rather than one based around evidence.
christophersays
Although I’m not sure I completely agree, many see democracy and capitalism as going hand in hand. I believe NATO and EU both require democratic systems for their members. WTO is broader, but I never suggested that non-democratic systems definitely would fight. Your Columbia/Venezuela example is out since Venezuela is currently not very democratic. Maybe I should have clarified that to be fully defined as democratic requires more than an election. It requires a consistent adherence to principles we would find in our Bill of Rights as well as a sustained cultural commitment to institutions and circumstances that support democracy, including economic circumstances conducive to a strong middle class. As I alluded to above Weimar lacked these things. I’ll concede that while it once may have been literally true the Golden Arches theory is now more metaphor. However, the other thing that was pointed out in my classes is that war requires popular support in a democratic system. Tyrants just go to war as it suits them whereas elected leaders need to be darn sure of support before doing so. It can be political disaster if they don’t have that support. While you do make some good points above I too have done some looking into this and I stand by what I’ve said. Namely political liberty and economic opportunity go a long way from saving the whole planet from a lot of grief.
jconwaysays
A few points.
<
p>If we define democracy to be ‘universal franchise, broad civil liberties, checks and balances’ and war to be ‘sustained conflict over 500 casualties’ then I can’t think of a perfect example to refute DPT in that sense. I would argue Pakistan under Sharif had most of those institutions so the Kargil War comes pretty close, but the coup right after shows that those institutions were not stable.
<
p>Yet if we examine the nations that this new subset narrows us down to, arguably the Western Hemisphere minus Cuba, Honduras, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Ecuador, the EU, Turkey and Israel, Japan and India, Australia and New Zealand-we have a host of countries that will never go to war not because they are democracies but because going to war is not in their interest. The EU is so economically integrated that war would be suicidal-it has not achieved the same level of political integration and is more of an economic rather than a democratic body. Similarly China and the US have not and will not go to war, not because China is a democracy but because the level of economic co-dependence and integration is so high it almost forces them to preserve the peace. Similarly NATO countries will not fight one another and that record stands for countries that were in NATO but were not democratic.
<
p>Now one could make the argument that collective security and economic agreements that are multinational are democratic elements-but China to me proves one can become more internationally engaged economically and politically without becoming more democratic internally.
<
p>Also I have seen a study of the 20th century showing that democracies are more, not less likely to fight. Barry Posen over at MIT has demonstrated that.
christophersays
All the conflicts I can think of in the 20th century had at least one party not democratic. If I wasn’t clear I didn’t mean that democracies never go to war; it’s that they don’t often go to war WITH EACH OTHER. World War I’s Central powers and World War II’s Axis powers were very much not democracies. Korean and Vietnam conflicts both had non-democratic governments as our adversaries. Both campaigns against Iraq and the one in Afghanistan were against non-democratic regimes. Our various other actions were against unelected or otherwise dictatorial regimes as well. I’m trying to think of conflicts not involving the US in the 20th century too. The Russo-Japanese War was non-democratic on both sides. Ditto for the Sino-Japanese War. I also interpret differently than you do. You have said that the reluctance of democracies to fight each other is due to other common interests. I would argue that similiar forms of government and sets of values is a key part of that very equation that discourages war.
jconwaysays
A few points:
<
p>At one point you stated the common supposition that democracies fight less and win more because they have a better selection method for wars due to checks and balances and elections which all ensure more bounded rationality within the internal political system. The MIT study by Posen which sadly I could not find online and was in an IR book I sold, (my apologies short term debt leads to short term economic solutions with long term educational consequences-students have poor bounded rationality selection for sure) but it surprisingly showed this was not to be the case. While I never ‘bought’ DPT I actually agreed with this theory before I saw the evidence-its just so intuitive-democracies would make better choices than dictators. But the reality is different. Posen’s explanation was we were more likely to fight in general because our enemies were not democratic, so we were less likely to use non-violent alternatives to solving our problems with them because we hold those regimes in disdain. His explanation seemed overly conjectural for my tastes but its the only one I’ve seen.
<
p>Again DPT alters depending on how one defines ‘democracy’ and ‘war’. If we define 19th century Britain and the US as democracies, as well as the Second French Republic, then they almost went to war with each other in the 1890s and the reasons they did not go to war had nothing to do with their being democracies. Similarly 1890s Spain (the country itself) was similar to Britain internally (elected parliament, figurehead Queen), although its empire was far more repressive so one could argue we fought an undemocratic power since our sphere of fighting was in their undemocratic provinces.
<
p>But you in fact don’t consider any of the WWI powers democratic so those examples can’t work. Using Lipson’s definition of liberal democracy (universal adult franchise, checks and balances, broad civil liberties) the US was not a democracy until 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was passed. So if our field is 1965-now, I would that while no two democracies have gone to war in that period, this fact does not automatically prove DPT correct. If I were to say that the sky is blue when it is not raining both statements are correct without one necessitating the other (while the sky is never blue while it is raining the sky being blue does not prevent rain).
<
p>Thus I would argue that the main causes are that those countries have never had a reason to go to war with one another since there is nothing for them to gain from fighting and the fact that they share internal political systems is irrelevant to their external conduct.
<
p>A good case in point is this potential future war between Denmark and Canada over Hans Island. I think we can agree without dispute that Denmark and Canada are both liberal democracies yet they are engaged in a cold war of sorts with naval provocation and military build up.
<
p>What is interesting is the posture the two countries are taking. This is the kind of war frequently fought historically, two neighbors fighting over disputed territory (don’t forget we even had one with Mexico). The response is not to send diplomats, to negotiate, to talk it over, no the response is to escalate, send a signal, set a trip wire, and see who backs down first. Classic political realism at its finest. Also look at the internal discussion both groups are having. The question is ‘are the Hans worth fighting over?’ aka is this in our interest? Nowhere is anyone saying how horrible it would be to fight a fellow democracy, instead due to the benefits of democracy such as internet forums, free protest, etc. the people have actually been a lot more nationalistically fervent than their elected representatives who are urging caution and restraint. Now war has yet to break out and the sides are planning on a big five party talk (Russia, Norway and Finland have claims too) to divy up the parcels peacefully. But even that isn’t unique to democracies, the great empires of Europe divided disputed territory peacefully all the time. So were a war to occur it would disprove DPT, were a war to be avoided it still would not be evidence of DPT.
<
p>So again I remain skeptical of DPT. Although this Canadian invasion proposal is quite amusing.
kirthsays
Your Columbia/Venezuela example is out since Venezuela is currently not very democratic.
According to the CIA Factbook, Venezuela’s system of government is a “Federal republic”.
Also according to the CIA, the US is a “Constitution-based federal republic”.
christophersays
…at least on paper, but that does not automatically make it a free country. Seems to me I’ve heard a lot about media censorship lately from Chavez. Chavez was elected democratically, but that by itself does not a democracy make.
kirthsays
Since it appears that only your definition of what anything is matters, what is your definition of a democracy? I’m asking in the hope that it won’t wriggle away next time something contradicts you.
christophersays
In some cases democracy specifically means direct rule by the people. Town meeting or law by referendum is this kind of democracy, which incidently, I’m not a big fan of. When speaking of nations, democracy is representative. Free and fair elections are a necessary, but not by themselves sufficient, component to calling a nation democratic. There needs to be a consistent adherence to political, civil, and human rights as well, although our own history shows that even that sometimes requires improvement. The primary source of legislation needs to be from a body constituted by free and fair elections, with either checks or very strong tradition keep anyone from overstepping. Off the top of my head basically democratic republics and constutional monarchies usually satisfy these requirements. Freedom House does a pretty good job of making the distinctions relevant to this discussion.
The importance of Pakistan has increased in this equation:
Yet the involvement in Afghanistan makes things more difficult in Pakistan.
There are a lot of warlords involved in the government. The recent election has only increased their power. The New York Times from August 7 reports on the following:
Sarah Chayes, a frequent NPR guest, worries that the warlords have gained too much power, e.g., ‘Lower your sights’ is the wrong vision for Afghanistan in the L.A. Times.
<
p>Andrew Bacevich at the end of last year takes a very opposite view. To him, democracy is unachievable:
He advocates the opposite policy: encourage the warlords:
This is somewhat like the Sunni Awakening strategy in Iraq. The gentle reader will recall that even Viagra was used to, er, sway some of the tribal chiefs.
… with regard to democracy building is the bootstrapping that this requires in a place like Afghanistan. The institutions that a democracy is supposed to underpin, are in turn the underpinnings of a democracy. The institutions aren’t really there to lend institutional weight that the democratic characteristics of any government require. The institution of the democratic method isn’t strong enough to lend weight to the elected institutions.
<
p>The civic institutions are supposed to define the rules and context and collective will that serve to keep the actors within (and without) the institutions, if not on the same page, at least with a set of well defined limits. That is, if the institutions are strong, splintering outside of ‘the rules’ will be less likely. One of those rules is the democratic process,… which is why and how such institutions, with enough cultural gravitas, can serve to ensure the integrity of democratic processes as they are acted out (as opposed to just as they are on paper).
<
p>It’s a terrible bootstrap problem.
Currently, the involvement in Afghanistan costs $2 billion per month. That’s a lot of money. For many years, as Matt Yglesias documents voices on the left were arguing for a larger commitment of troops and forces to Afghanistan, e.g., 100,000 from the outset. Many were warning that Afghanistan would pass a point of no return a couple years ago. So one problem with a surge now is that it would still be insufficient. As Richard Haass argues:
So while it might be true that Afghanistan could be turned around with a commitment of more troops, the turn-around might require ten times as many troops as we’re committing.
“Why aren’t we criticizing Obama?” “Won’t this become Obama’s Vietnam?” “Don’t you liberals care about casualties?”
<
p>
Isn’t this where we’re going with this? What then?
<
p>A garrisoned military strategy is exact what didn’t work for the Soviets.
<
p>The 9/11 plot was hatched there, carried out from there, terrorists trained there. OBL, Mullah Omar and Kalid Sheik Muhammad operated from Afghanistan (and Pakistan).
<
p>Are you suggesting we abandon this region and allow it to become, once again, a base of operations which may lead to another 9/11?
Precisely the question Prof. Walt is raising is whether Afghanistan would return to becoming a safe haven for Al Qaeda — even if the Taliban were to regain power. I have sympathy for the hypothesis you assert so forcefully, but it’s just that. A hypothesis. We’re spending $2 billion a month, irritating Pakistan, and losing who knows how many lives in support of it.
<
p>Time for the auditors.
I have to agree with Col. Bacevich that democracy building would be a complete waste of time, manpower, blood, and treasure. No other great power has ever successfully conquered, occupied, and subdued Afghanistan. It has been a nation that has been tribally governed for over two thousand years and America is not going to change that.
<
p>I just cannot understand for the life of me why President Obama is advancing the same nation building neoconservative fantasy of spreading democracy? We wasted billions in Iraq trying to build schools, infrastructure, and healthcare for people that did not want them and refused to support our efforts to Westernize and democratize them. It was only after Gen. Petraeus advocated making deals with their tribal warlords and advanced the attainable goal of stability rather than the fantastical goal of democracy that we were able to lay the foundations for a relatively peaceful and strategic withdrawal from the country. I don’t understand why we can’t just leave behind a small footprint of special forces and intel forces to hunt down AQ and OBL and just give enough money to prop up Karzai’s forces?
<
p>Bacevich makes a compelling case for why the Afghan war as we are currently pursuing it is unwinnable in the most recent Commonweal front page article and I have to say his points make sense. Stopping the Taliban, spreading democracy and women’s rights, these are just goals that are simply unfeasible for the US military in its current state and goals that do not in any capacity substantially improve the security of the US.
<
p>Richard Haas is normally a respectable voice in the foreign policy community, but his assertion that a withdrawal will lead to the Taliban occupying the whole country is simply ridiculous. The Pashtun warlords not to mention the Afghan elite that returned to power and prominence with the US invasion are completely unwilling to relinquish or share power with the Taliban and so long as we arm those forces they can hold them off. I see no reason why we should directly fight their civil war for them since I am skeptical that the Taliban in its current capacity can ever exert total authority over the country again and its also decoupled from AQ which is currently based out of Pakistan instead.
<
p>The only reason I can see for Obama’s needless escalation of the war is political expediency. George Bush lost the war when he invaded Iraq but Obama does not want the aftermath of that loss to occur on his watch. This desire is surprisingly reminiscent of the mindset of LBJ and Nixon who both inherited a war they personally despised and admitted to their closest confidants was unwinnable but escalated anyway to save face. I hope and pray Obama does not repeat that mistake.
<
p>Vietnam was a war of choice, with AQ dismantled and scattered about, retreating into Pakistan, one could argue Afghanistan has turned into one as well.
…the better off we all are. Assisting a nation in building a stable democracy is the OPPOSITE of subduing it.
In order for democracy to function, it requires:
<
p>1. A literate electorate, and
2. An electorate that understands and embraces western rationalism
<
p>Neither is present in Afghanistan. I’m not suggesting, in any way, that we should impede a home-grown movement towards democracy. I am stating that attempting to impose western-style democracy on the Afghan people is surely a prescription for failure.
This is not an assertion based forum it is an evidence based forum. Where is your evidence for democracy building abroad actually improving the peace and security of the United States?
<
p>I mean certainly I am a proponent of democracy for moral reasons since I want everyone to be safe and free. But those reasons have no correlation with the national security interests of the United States.
<
p>And no we are no ‘assisting’ Afghanistan in building a stable democracy we are forcing that system upon a nation that has never had any kind of stable centralized government, let alone a democratic one. And that is simply unrealistic foreign policy that is bound to fail, make our country less safe, make Afghanistan less safe, and kill our soldiers and waste our money needlessly all based on your lovely moral assertion that democracy is good.
<
p>Some countries work better without democracy and have no intention to become democratic. I say let the US continue to be the worlds beacon for freedom, if other countries wish to emulate us and request our assistance in forming naturally evolving democratic institutions like Russia and former Soviet countries did in the 90s that’s great and we should help them. Using military force to militantly spread democracy is antithetical to a sound national security strategy and frankly antithetical to the founders vision. We are not a revolutionary state exporting its ideology abroad.
I’m not aware of any full-fledged democracies going to war with each other. The closest I can come up with is the War of 1812, but both sides still left much to be desired on the democratic front. In an international politics class in school there was even a reference made to what was dubbed “the Golden Arches theory of international relations” which basically said that no countries, both of which have McDonalds and thus can be shown to be somewhat sympathetic to western values, have never engaged in sustained conflict. Sorry, but all the historical evidence suggests to me that democracy=peace, but I want to be clear that I am in no way advocating force against every undemocratic nation solely for the purpose of making them democracies. I only adhere to the Wilsonian view that we should do everything within our power to “make the world safe for democracy”. The extent to which we’re helping Afghanistan along is simply a byproduct of our security-related involvement there.
… 1939 Germany a democracy?
<
p>Modern India is a democracy, yes?
<
p>Also, I’m not convinced 1982 UK would be any less motivated to take the Falklands were Argentina a more established democracy.
<
p>Modern Georgia and Russia are ostensibly democracies, yes?
In 1939, Germany was pretty far from being a democracy; back in 1914, it was much closer to being one. Surely, France and Britain were.
<
p>Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan have not been free of conflict and they are at least nominally democracies. How about India and Pakistan?
Definitely not a democracy by that point. Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933 and I believe by 1939 had banned opposition parties. The Weimar Republic was a democracy on paper, but lacked the cultural commitment, which is what gave the Nazis their opening.
<
p>Russia’s claim to democracy under Putin has been questionable at best.
From my own extensive experience in IR relations theory having taken classes from Mearsheimer, DPTs biggest opponent, and Charles Lipson who wrote the book on DPT, my own conclusion is that DPT proponents constantly modify the definition of ‘war’ and ‘democracy’ so that the evidence fits the theory. I’d prefer the theory fit the evidence, and not the other way around.
<
p>Goldenarches theory was recently disproved by the Georgian conflict, and earlier by the first Persian Gulf War.
<
p>I would argue the Kargil War, the Lebanon Wars, the Gaza war, and the wars over Cyprus are all examples of DPT failing. The latter portion of WWI and the Falkland war also meet the example.
<
p>But I will give you the benefit of a doubt. If we define ‘liberal democracy’ as a system of government with broad civil liberties, universal franchise, and serious checks and balances and if we define ‘war’ as any sustained conflict incurring more than 500 casualties (the UNs definition btw) then our field is significantly limited to the past 50 years of international politics which in my view is too small of a time frame to prove the theory’s validity. Additionally within that field we have developments that offer a reason why the countries that fit the category of ‘liberal democracy’ have not fought.
<
p>Here is a testable, provable fact. No two NATO nations have gone to war. No two EU nations have gone to war. No two NAFTA organizations have gone to war. No two WTO members have gone to war. The rise of globalization, collective security, and economic/international trade agreements has decreased war amongst the great powers-not liberal democracy.
<
p>Furthermore this subset includes states that would be unlikely to go to war anyway such as Mexico and Britain, etc.
<
p>Lastly recent examples of Greece and Turkey nearly going to war over Cyprus, and Colombia and Venezuela nearly going to war, are all examples IMHO that a) democracies are not any less likely to fight amongst themselves and b) when they don’t fight it is due to things besides their governing system. In the case of Greece and Turkey it was internal politics that brought them back from the brink. In the case of Venezuela it was economic reliance on Colombia.
<
p>So DPT to me seems like a theory that is not testable, which makes it an article of faith or belief, rather than one based around evidence.
Although I’m not sure I completely agree, many see democracy and capitalism as going hand in hand. I believe NATO and EU both require democratic systems for their members. WTO is broader, but I never suggested that non-democratic systems definitely would fight. Your Columbia/Venezuela example is out since Venezuela is currently not very democratic. Maybe I should have clarified that to be fully defined as democratic requires more than an election. It requires a consistent adherence to principles we would find in our Bill of Rights as well as a sustained cultural commitment to institutions and circumstances that support democracy, including economic circumstances conducive to a strong middle class. As I alluded to above Weimar lacked these things. I’ll concede that while it once may have been literally true the Golden Arches theory is now more metaphor. However, the other thing that was pointed out in my classes is that war requires popular support in a democratic system. Tyrants just go to war as it suits them whereas elected leaders need to be darn sure of support before doing so. It can be political disaster if they don’t have that support. While you do make some good points above I too have done some looking into this and I stand by what I’ve said. Namely political liberty and economic opportunity go a long way from saving the whole planet from a lot of grief.
A few points.
<
p>If we define democracy to be ‘universal franchise, broad civil liberties, checks and balances’ and war to be ‘sustained conflict over 500 casualties’ then I can’t think of a perfect example to refute DPT in that sense. I would argue Pakistan under Sharif had most of those institutions so the Kargil War comes pretty close, but the coup right after shows that those institutions were not stable.
<
p>Yet if we examine the nations that this new subset narrows us down to, arguably the Western Hemisphere minus Cuba, Honduras, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Ecuador, the EU, Turkey and Israel, Japan and India, Australia and New Zealand-we have a host of countries that will never go to war not because they are democracies but because going to war is not in their interest. The EU is so economically integrated that war would be suicidal-it has not achieved the same level of political integration and is more of an economic rather than a democratic body. Similarly China and the US have not and will not go to war, not because China is a democracy but because the level of economic co-dependence and integration is so high it almost forces them to preserve the peace. Similarly NATO countries will not fight one another and that record stands for countries that were in NATO but were not democratic.
<
p>Now one could make the argument that collective security and economic agreements that are multinational are democratic elements-but China to me proves one can become more internationally engaged economically and politically without becoming more democratic internally.
<
p>Also I have seen a study of the 20th century showing that democracies are more, not less likely to fight. Barry Posen over at MIT has demonstrated that.
All the conflicts I can think of in the 20th century had at least one party not democratic. If I wasn’t clear I didn’t mean that democracies never go to war; it’s that they don’t often go to war WITH EACH OTHER. World War I’s Central powers and World War II’s Axis powers were very much not democracies. Korean and Vietnam conflicts both had non-democratic governments as our adversaries. Both campaigns against Iraq and the one in Afghanistan were against non-democratic regimes. Our various other actions were against unelected or otherwise dictatorial regimes as well. I’m trying to think of conflicts not involving the US in the 20th century too. The Russo-Japanese War was non-democratic on both sides. Ditto for the Sino-Japanese War. I also interpret differently than you do. You have said that the reluctance of democracies to fight each other is due to other common interests. I would argue that similiar forms of government and sets of values is a key part of that very equation that discourages war.
A few points:
<
p>At one point you stated the common supposition that democracies fight less and win more because they have a better selection method for wars due to checks and balances and elections which all ensure more bounded rationality within the internal political system. The MIT study by Posen which sadly I could not find online and was in an IR book I sold, (my apologies short term debt leads to short term economic solutions with long term educational consequences-students have poor bounded rationality selection for sure) but it surprisingly showed this was not to be the case. While I never ‘bought’ DPT I actually agreed with this theory before I saw the evidence-its just so intuitive-democracies would make better choices than dictators. But the reality is different. Posen’s explanation was we were more likely to fight in general because our enemies were not democratic, so we were less likely to use non-violent alternatives to solving our problems with them because we hold those regimes in disdain. His explanation seemed overly conjectural for my tastes but its the only one I’ve seen.
<
p>Again DPT alters depending on how one defines ‘democracy’ and ‘war’. If we define 19th century Britain and the US as democracies, as well as the Second French Republic, then they almost went to war with each other in the 1890s and the reasons they did not go to war had nothing to do with their being democracies. Similarly 1890s Spain (the country itself) was similar to Britain internally (elected parliament, figurehead Queen), although its empire was far more repressive so one could argue we fought an undemocratic power since our sphere of fighting was in their undemocratic provinces.
<
p>But you in fact don’t consider any of the WWI powers democratic so those examples can’t work. Using Lipson’s definition of liberal democracy (universal adult franchise, checks and balances, broad civil liberties) the US was not a democracy until 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was passed. So if our field is 1965-now, I would that while no two democracies have gone to war in that period, this fact does not automatically prove DPT correct. If I were to say that the sky is blue when it is not raining both statements are correct without one necessitating the other (while the sky is never blue while it is raining the sky being blue does not prevent rain).
<
p>Thus I would argue that the main causes are that those countries have never had a reason to go to war with one another since there is nothing for them to gain from fighting and the fact that they share internal political systems is irrelevant to their external conduct.
<
p>A good case in point is this potential future war between Denmark and Canada over Hans Island. I think we can agree without dispute that Denmark and Canada are both liberal democracies yet they are engaged in a cold war of sorts with naval provocation and military build up.
<
p>What is interesting is the posture the two countries are taking. This is the kind of war frequently fought historically, two neighbors fighting over disputed territory (don’t forget we even had one with Mexico). The response is not to send diplomats, to negotiate, to talk it over, no the response is to escalate, send a signal, set a trip wire, and see who backs down first. Classic political realism at its finest. Also look at the internal discussion both groups are having. The question is ‘are the Hans worth fighting over?’ aka is this in our interest? Nowhere is anyone saying how horrible it would be to fight a fellow democracy, instead due to the benefits of democracy such as internet forums, free protest, etc. the people have actually been a lot more nationalistically fervent than their elected representatives who are urging caution and restraint. Now war has yet to break out and the sides are planning on a big five party talk (Russia, Norway and Finland have claims too) to divy up the parcels peacefully. But even that isn’t unique to democracies, the great empires of Europe divided disputed territory peacefully all the time. So were a war to occur it would disprove DPT, were a war to be avoided it still would not be evidence of DPT.
<
p>So again I remain skeptical of DPT. Although this Canadian invasion proposal is quite amusing.
According to the CIA Factbook, Venezuela’s system of government is a “Federal republic”.
Also according to the CIA, the US is a “Constitution-based federal republic”.
…at least on paper, but that does not automatically make it a free country. Seems to me I’ve heard a lot about media censorship lately from Chavez. Chavez was elected democratically, but that by itself does not a democracy make.
Since it appears that only your definition of what anything is matters, what is your definition of a democracy? I’m asking in the hope that it won’t wriggle away next time something contradicts you.
In some cases democracy specifically means direct rule by the people. Town meeting or law by referendum is this kind of democracy, which incidently, I’m not a big fan of. When speaking of nations, democracy is representative. Free and fair elections are a necessary, but not by themselves sufficient, component to calling a nation democratic. There needs to be a consistent adherence to political, civil, and human rights as well, although our own history shows that even that sometimes requires improvement. The primary source of legislation needs to be from a body constituted by free and fair elections, with either checks or very strong tradition keep anyone from overstepping. Off the top of my head basically democratic republics and constutional monarchies usually satisfy these requirements. Freedom House does a pretty good job of making the distinctions relevant to this discussion.