Democracy Promotion and U.S National Interests in the Middle East

2013

University of Saad Dahlab, Blida

Faculty of Letters and Languages

Department of Foreign Languages/English

DEMOCRACY PROMOTION AND U.S NATIONAL INTERESTS IN THE MIDDLE

EAST

STUDY CASE: IRAQ

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Master degree in:

Literature and Civilization

Candidates:

Nour El Houda Houatis

Abdelhadi Esselami

Supervisor : Dr. Mohammed Afkir

i

Declaration

We hereby declare that the substance of this dissertation is entirely the result of our

investigation and that due reference or acknowledgment is made, whenever necessary, to the

work of other researchers.

Candidates:

Nour El Houda Houatis

Abdelhadi Esselami

ii

Abstract

Approximately 10 years ago, a fierce war had taken place in Iraq, a war waged by U.S.A to

promote democracy in the country. However, the motivations of the war became ambiguous after the

capture and execution of Saddam Hussein, who has been considered as the tyrant of the country.

U.S.A seemed to have ulterior motives that would fulfill its interests rather than save the country

from decimation. The U.S government claimed that the war was waged in order to fight terrorism in

the region on which Saddam Hussein is responsible for because of his terrorist connections with al

Qaeda besides his possession to weapons of mass destruction. However, despite of the crucial

consequences of war on both USA and Iraq, the war had strangely continued raging, and U.S.A

seemed to be fighting for no clear purpose, as it became clear to the world that U.S.A maintained its

military existence in the country for ambiguous reasons. This study is divided into three chapters.

The first chapter provides an understanding about the nature of democracy promotion and its

historical context. Second chapter delves into the central US interests in the Middle East to protect

its own national interests. The last chapter evaluates the validation of democracy promotion and its

efficiency in serving the US national interests through analyzing data gathered from the war on Iraq,

as it tends to show the untrustworthiness of democracy promotion. This study reveals that democracy

promotion is meant to serve the US interests only in places of influence. However, this policy proves

to be a failed strategy in Iraq in which it didn’t serve the US national interests as it gives it a bad

reputation.

iii

Résumé

Il y a approximativement 10 ans, une guerre féroce avait eu lieu en Irak, une guerre faite par

les Etats-Unis pour favoriser la démocratie dans le pays. Cependant, les motivations de la guerre

sont devenues ambiguës après la capture et l'exécution de Saddam Hussein, qui a été considéré en

tant que tyrant du pays. Les Etats-Unis ont semblé avoir des motifs secrets qui accompliraient ses

intérêts plutôt que sauveraient le pays de la décimation. Le gouvernement des états-Unis a réclamé

que la guerre a été faite afin de combattre le terrorisme dans la région sur quel Saddam Hussein est

responsable de en raison de ses raccordements de terroriste avec de l'Al Qaeda sans compter que sa

possession aux armes de la destruction de masse. Cependant, l'outrage des conséquences cruciales

de la guerre sur les les deux Etats-Unis et Irak, la guerre avait étrangement continué faire rage, et les

Etats-Unis ont semblé combattre pour aucun but clair, pendant qu'ils devenaient clairs au monde que

les Etats-Unis ont maintenu sa existence militaire dans le pays pour des raisons ambiguës. Cette

étude est divisée en trois chapitres. Le premier chapitre fournissent une compréhension au sujet de

la nature de la promotion de démocratie et de son contexte historique. Le deuxième chapitre fouille

dans les intérêts centraux des Etats-Unis dans le Moyen-Orient de protéger ses propres intérêts

nationaux. Le dernier chapitre évalue la validation de la promotion de démocratie et de son

efficacité en servant aux Etats-Unis des intérêts nationaux en analysant des données recueillies de la

guerre sur l'Irak, car il tend à montrer l'inauthenticité de la promotion de démocratie. Cette étude

indique que la promotion de démocratie est censée pour servir les intérêts des Etats-Unis seulement

dans les endroits de l'influence. Cependant, cette politique s'avère être une stratégie échouée en Irak

auquel elle n'a pas servi aux Etats-Unis des intérêts nationaux comme elle lui donne une mauvaise

réputation.

iv

صـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــملخ

لتعزيز األمريكية المتحدة الواليات شنتها التي الحرب وهي العراق، في وقعت حرب شرسة ،أعوام 01يقارب ما منذ

طاغية يعتبر كان الذي حسين، صدام وإعدام اعتقال بعد غامضة ضلت للحرب الحقيقية الدوافع غير أن. البالد في الديمقراطية

الحكومة زعمت. هالك من البالد انقاذ من بدال مصالحها خدمت أن شأنها من خفية دوافع األمريكية المتحدة لوالياتل أن بدا. البالد

تنظيم مع عالقاته بسبب ذلك عن المسؤول حسين صدام معتبرة المنطقة في اإلرهاب محاربة أجل من شنت الحرب أن األمريكية

المتحدة الواليات من كل علىللحرب الوخيمة العواقب من الرغم على إال انه. الشامل الدمار ألسلحة امتالكه جانب إلى القاعدة

كما ،غرض مبهم أجل من تقاتل أنها بقيت األمريكية المتحدة الواليات فيه بدت ،عنيف بشكل استمرت قد الحرب إال ان والعراق،

ثالثة إلى الدراسة هذه تنقسم. غامضة سبابأل البالد في عسكريال بوجودها تحتفظ األمريكية المتحدة الواليات أن للعالم واضحا بات

لوالياتل االساسية مصالحال يف الثاني الفصل تعمقي. التاريخي وسياقها الديمقراطية تعزيز طبيعة عن فهم مقدي األول الفصل. فصول

في وكفاءتها الديمقراطية تعزيزصالحية بتقييم يقوماألخير الفصل. الخاصة الوطنية مصالحها لحماية األوسط الشرق في المتحدة

إظهار إلى يميل أنه كما العراق، على الحرب من جمعها تم التي اناتالبي تحليل خالل من المتحدة للواليات القومية المصالح خدمة

الواليات مصالح إلى خدمة يهدف للديمقراطية الترويج أن الدراسة هذه تكشف. للديمقراطية الترويج في مصداقية هذه السياسة عدم

القومية مصالحال يخدم لم حيث أنه العراق في فاشلة ستراتيجيةإ هاأن على برهنت السياسة هذه إال أن. نفوذ أماكن في فقط المتحدة

. ةسيئ سمعة أكسبها كما المتحدة للواليات

v

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to the dearest people to our

hearts:

Our parents who had immensely supported us

(Khiera and Benameur Houatis, Aicha and Mohamed

Esselami)

It is also dedicated to the families of Esselami and

Houatis:

Our sisters and Brothers

(Lotfi, Krimou, Nour El Houda, and Halim

Esselami, Oussama, Ahmed and fatima zohra

Houatis)

Without forgetting our dearest friends:

Mounira Doukani,

Raouf,Wahid,Aboubakr,and Walid.

vi

Acknowledgement

First and foremost, we would like to thank our supervisor, Dr. Mohamed Afkir for his

invaluable advices and insightful guidance, his constructive criticism kept us on the right path

for finishing this dissertation. Besides, we would like to express our gratitude for our friends,

family members and even acquaintances that encouraged us greatly since the beginning of

our dissertation.

vii

Contents

Declaration……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……… 7

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………. 7

Dedication …………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………..v

Acknowlegement …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………… vi

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………...1

I. Chapter 1 : The nature and history of American democracy promotion

1. Definition of Democracy …………………………………………………………………………………..………4

1.1. Key elements of democracy……………………………………………………………………………5

1.2. Democracy and American exceptionalism…………………………………………………....5

2. Definition of democracy promotion…………………………………………………………………………9

2.1. Historical background of democracy promotion …………………………………………9

3. Definition of National interests ………………………………………………………………………………12

3.1. The relationship between National interests and democracy building ......14

1. Chapter 2: US National interests in the Middle East

2. American interests in the Middle East …………………………………………………………………...17

3. Background about neo-conservatism ……………………………………………………………………..21

4. Neoconservatives’ vision of national interests ……………………………………………………..22

5. The Bush war on terror after 09/11…………………………………………………………………………25

4.1. US-Iraq relations…………………………………………………………………………………..…………26

4.2. Waging war on Iraq…………………………………………………………………………………..…….26

II. Chapter 3: The US democracy promotion and national interests in Iraq: Evaluation.

1. The aims behind war on Iraq……………………………………………………………………………………30

2. The impact of the war on Iraq on US national interests ………………………………………32

2.1. Human costs. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………...33

2.2. Social costs. …………………………………………………………………………………..………………..35

2.3. Economic costs. …………………………………………………………………………………..………....35

2.4. Anti-Americanism. …………………………………………………………………………………..……41

3. The American public opinion about democracy promotion and war on Iraq…….41

4. The Muslim public opinion about democracy promotion and war on Iraq………..46

5. Democracy promotion: between success and failure……………………………………………..50

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………..x

References …………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………… xii

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………….…. xvi

viii

List of Tables

Table1. The Iraq war contribution to the rise in oil prices (2003-2008) ………………………………38

Table2. The cumulative Extra Expenditure on US oil imports, 2003-2008. ……………………….39

Table3. The US macroeconomic costs of the war on Iraq……………………………………………………...40

Table4. : Public opinion about the US government policies in two different years

2002-2004…………………………………………………………………………………..………..................................................................47

Table5. Changes in perceptions about the United States in Various Arab States over the year from

2004-2005…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………..……….47

Table6. Iraq war has or has not made Americans safer from terrorism…………………………………52

ix

List of figures

Figure1. Chart of Human costs. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………34

Figure2. Chart of Human costs …………………………………………………………………………………..………34-35

Figure3. Graph of Can democracy work well in the Muslim countries. ……………………………..42

Figure4. Graph about How important is it for the US to support the growth of democratic movement

in every nation? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..43

Figure5. Graph about Can the US effectively help other countries become democratic?...44

Figure6. Graph about Iraq war worth it? ………………………………………………………………………………...45

Figure7. Graph about Statements: Iraq war. …………………………………………………………………………..46

Figure8. Graph about Arabs views of US motivations for Iraq war. …………………………………48

Figure9. Graph about The U.S promotes democracy ……………………………………………………….....49

Figure10. Graph about War on Iraq to remove Saddam made the world…?…………………….53

1

Introduction

Since the emergence of U.S.A as a world power, supporting democracy has been a priority in

U.S foreign Affairs in which it has been on every president’s agenda; however, democracy during

George W.Bush presidency has taken another course. It stretched to reach the entire world like:

Indonesia, Russia, Liberia, Ukraine and Venezuela.

Supporting Democracy has become an integral part in Bush’s freedom Agenda as he clearly

stated in his second inaugural address:

“America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our basic beliefs …

It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and

institutions in every nation and culture.” 1

Bush’s freedom Agenda doesn’t only express America’s ideals but also works for US

National interests. According to Bush, the lack of political freedom in some countries, especially in

the Middle East, fosters political extremism and anti-western terrorism. Thus, Democracy promotion

exists to help cut all roots of terrorism.

The recent 09/11 events had a deep impact on USA. For the latter, being the only pole and the

dominant power of the international politics, the 09/11 attacks were not simply meant to target the

American security, but also represent an important form of international conflict and seriously

challenge the United states to a decisive turning point, either to prove its presence and strengthen its

hegemony on the international scene or to expose its national security to a serious threat.

1 Thomas Carothers. U.S Democracy Promotion During and After Bush. Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace, Mass, 2007.

2

Thus, the Bush administration sought to spread democracy in the Middle East, which would

serve as an antidote to the emergence of Islamist terrorism and enhance American security as to

foster U.S national interests in the Arab strategic areas.

Iraq represents one of the most controversial cases of democracy promotion which has

attracted the attention of the whole world because of the armed intervention and the significant costs

of the war there. That raised many questions about the legitimacy and the true intents of the war like:

why was war on terror related to Iraq specifically? What are the American interests in the Middle

East? How did the war on terror serve the American interests? Did the U.S fulfill all of those

interests? And finally did democracy promotion succeed or failed in the Middle East and as a tool of

a foreign policy?

So, this present study will highlight the impact of democracy promotion on U.S National

interests through the Iraq invasion, as to assess whether this policy has succeeded or failed in its

attempts to build a democratic Iraq on its way to a more democratic Middle East.

This study encompasses three divisions. The first part examines the nature of democracy

promotion as an American foreign policy growing from American thinking of being an exceptional

nation. It also mentions some of the American experiences in promoting democracy like Haiti and

the Middle East. Finally, it examines the relationship between democracy assistance and U.S

national interests by being one of the core interests which was developed to ensure a stable and safe

world for U.S national interests outside its borders.

Chapter two examines specifically the U.S interests in the Middle East based on the

neoconservative’s ideas. It also explains Bush’s strategy of war on terror which has targeted Iraq to

3

remove Saddam Hussein and his regime, as planning to democratize this country after long years of

oppression and aiming to make it a model democratic country in the Middle East. However, this

strategy seemed to work only where there are American interests like the Middle East, while

neglecting the other parts of the world which are in desperate need of democracy.

Chapter three goes further to analyze and evaluate democracy promotion In Iraq, questioning

if this war has led to good improvements in Iraq; as it explains how democracy didn’t serve U.S

interests, while no one came out from this war victorious. This chapter clarifies the incredibility of

the democracy promotion since it tends to work only for U.S interests while it demolishes the target

country’s national security.

A descriptive analytical approach is adopted in this study in order to describe the American

democracy promotion in the U.S foreign policy to achieve its ideals and aims. Secondly, it attempts

to assess this policy, through gathered public data and political speeches, and reveal its

inauthenticity.

In conclusion, this research reveals the failure of democracy promotion in fostering

democracy in the Middle East, as proved to be a harmful tool in The U.S administrations agenda,

which seeks only to ensure U.S interests. However, on the real ground of Iraq, this policy has

surrendered and was a complete failure despite of the negligence of this fact by the U.S

administrations. War on Iraq has shown the true intents of democracy promotion for the worldwide;

as it has cost U.S.A a lot.

Chapter I

The Nature and History of American Democracy Promotion

4

Introduction

The history of the U.S has always been related to democracy, a country that was built according

to the principles of such political system. Democracy was developed and modified throughout the

history of the U.S, and then it reached a level of sophistication that enabled the U.S to rise and lead

the new free world. Undoubtedly, the American exceptionalism is the main factor that helped the

Americans to be a great nation, seeking to be successful and productive inside the U.S borders and

promote democracy to the whole world simultaneously. The American democracy and American

exceptionalism were repeatedly used by all U.S presidents in order to serve as a justification for

promoting democracy to the world.

1. Definition of Democracy

Democracy2 is a very sophisticated political system that mainly concentrates on explaining

the rights and responsibilities of the elites, leaders, and the masses. However, this political system

had to go through long phases of transformation and development since the 6th

century B.C, to reach

this level of sophistication.

Democracy is the opposite of other forms of governments that proceeded democracy, such as

aristocracy, monarchy and dictatorship. Unlike the previous forms of governments, the core interest

of democracy is people; they can actually contribute in running and directing their government. The

2 Tracing back the etymology of the word in history, Democracy is an ancient Greek term that goes back to

as early as classical Athens in the 6th century B.C. The term is composed of 2 parts, “demos” which means

people and “Kratein” which means to govern. So, when the two parts of the word are gathered to form a

whole, It means that people govern, or the government belongs to people.

5

American President Abraham Lincoln had clearly defined democracy and demonstrated its purpose

in which he said: “The government of the people, by the people and for the people"3

Democracy has a firm relation with freedom. In fact, the two terms democracy and freedom

are often interchangeable, although they are not synonyms. Democracy, like any other political

system, comprises of a set of ideals and principles about freedom mainly. Thus, in a democratic

society, people have rights and responsibilities, while their major task is to protect their freedom if

the governors misused it.4

1.1. Key elements of democracy

Democracy is not a mere notion or a principle; it has some key aspects that make it stand out

from other political systems. The most important one is Fundamental freedom and fundamental

rights, since it is not possible to preserve and promote human rights under any other form of

government except in democracy. Other aspects of democracy which make it a solid and the ultimate

political system are ; elections, rule of the law, separation or the division of powers, parliament,

democratic pluralism, the government and the opposition, and the last one is the public opinion and

the freedom of media.5

1.2. Democracy and American Exceptionalism

The previous aspects are considered as direct elements of democracy that proved to be

established in the United States of America, ranking it among one of the preferable democratic

countries in the world. The U.S remarkably stands out from other countries in terms of democracy.

3 Qtd in http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm .

4 George Clack, Mildred Sola Neely, et al, ed. Democracy in Brief. Woodrow Wilson International center for

scholars. 5 Paula Becker, Dr. Jean-Aimé and A.Revelon , “what is democracy ?” .

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

6

In fact, many scholars regard the history of the United States as being exceptional from its early

beginnings. America at first was described as “the city upon the hill” (John Winthrop), early

Americans believed greatly in their exceptional experience that they would assume that the world is

watching them “the eyes of all people are upon us.” (John Winthrop). The United States is believed

to be a unique country because it is founded on a set of ideals and principles which were thought to

be applicable to people in any nation. 6 Throughout the American history, many U.S presidents have

uttered the same phrases as being an exceptional nation like the U.S President Ronald Reagan “the

shining city on the hill.” (Ronald Reagan)

Moreover, with the development of the social exceptionalism ideas in the half of the 19th

century, scholars all over the world have analyzed and justified American exceptionalism especially

with regard to democracy:

“The situation of the Americans is therefore entirely exceptional, and it is to be believed that

no other democratic people will ever be placed in it” (de Tocqueville 2002, 430)7

Tocqueville hints to the uniqueness of the American democracy since its foundation. People

had one goal when they immigrated to the new land, they wanted freedom and equality as to secure

the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; the government should be

established under the consent of people “their just powers from the consent of the governed”8 . So, it

is no surprise that they adopted democracy in their political system since they consider the freedom

and the power of people as the major priority of the government.

6 James W.Ceaser, the origin and character of American exceptionalism, American political thought, spring

2012. 7 Ibid. p430

8 Declaration of independence http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

7

Other scholars would go further concerning American exceptionalism; they would consider

the American experience as well as the fruitful ideals and principles worthy of being spread all over

the world. This was initiated under the name of the American mission to civilize the entire world:

“The idea of a nation having a mission—the option I will discuss—is widely regarded today

as controversial. Nations, many think, should do no more than live and let live, behaving, so

to speak, like good neighbors cutting their grass and taking out their trash. Any purpose that

goes beyond this one is a throwback to the benighted era of nationalism. The fact that so

many Americans persist in thinking in terms of a mission, however one judges this fact, is

very likely today to be an example of exceptionalism in the social scientific meaning.”

9(James W.Ceaser

10)

Moreover, this mission that has inspired many European countries in the past centuries to

conquer other continents under the name of civilizing missions; However, what made the American

mission seem to be special is its aim to promote democracy rather than Christianity, which gave

U.S.A a head start from other countries. Since spreading Christianity was a spiritual mission and

people seemed to be careless about religion; but instead, they wanted something tangible and

plausible. So the U.S government would try to spread democracy instead of Christianity in order to

provide a more convincing justification for such interventions.

Over the history of the nation, The United States has put democracy on the top of its

priorities. It is very important that every American politician speaks in the name of democracy;

every social, political, or economic procedure should be undertaken with regard to democracy.

Democracy extends beyond the borders of the United States, and every nation in the world deserves

9 Ibid. p7

10 James W. Ceaser is Harry F. Byrd Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia.

8

to be enlightened by democracy; while any other form of government is inferior to democracy, and

the latter is considered as the highest and the perfect system of government thanks to its principles.

So, it is the solemn duty of the United States to promote democracy to the world.

The United States has reshaped the old Greek democracy into a new democracy that is

adaptable with the contemporary world. Although the previous U.S presidents did not enunciate the

urge of promoting Democracy to the world openly, they had hinted to it repeatedly over the history

of the nation through their speeches, doctrines and their policies:

“ I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a

grand scene and design in providence, for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of

the slavish part of mankind all over the earth” (John Adams 1765) 11

Early U.S presidents seemed to have a tendency to mention America’s religious democratic

values that grant the United States its uniqueness. U.S presidents at that time wanted the whole

world to understand that the American people were chosen to enlighten the world with their

experience because they are the chosen people of God who were meant to spread democracy to the

desperate world as part of their holy mission.

This sentiment has given the birth to the first national security doctrine, which is the first form

of democracy promotion as it closely resembles it in its principles. National security threats were

really crucial to the republic’s foundation, and the best way to avoid them was by waging wars

against countries that put both the republic and its allies in danger.

11

Lamont Colucci. The National Security Doctrines of the American Presidency: How They Shape Our

Present and Future, vol2, U.S.A. 2012.

http://www.google.dz/search?hl=fr&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Lamont+Colucci%22

9

2. Definition of democracy promotion

The term “democracy promotion” has been debated over a long time due to the multiplicity of

opinions and approaches about the precise definition of the term “Democracy promotion”. The

meaning of the word “promotion” has been questioned repeatedly as some tend to see it as an outside

interference rather than a noble mission. However, democracy promotion as a form can be defined

as a strand of foreign policy adopted by governments and international institutions, seeking to

support the spread of democracy as a political system all over the world. Democracy promotion can

be also referred to as democracy assistance or democracy building.

2.1. Historical background of democracy promotion

President James Monroe made an important contribution in the national security doctrines in

which he shifted from the neutral nation that refrained from interfering in any other country’s affairs,

to a country which tends to reform the whole world into its unique principles and ideals.12

The

United states, led by president Monroe, would engage in wars against France and Spain for territory

expansion, and the culmination of events led to the war of 1812 which granted U.S.A large territories

(the Louisiana purchase, South America and Latin America independence from European

occupation) .Then president James Monroe has enunciated his doctrine, which became quite popular

since its creation in 1823. The doctrine stated that all European countries are prohibited from

interfering in the Americas, many European territories in the Americas would be confiscated from

European countries soon after, and this was President Monroe’s grand strategy for hemispheric

sovereignty which was really crucial in the 19th and the 20th century. In addition, the United States

had made a bold statement that the European autocratic systems were oppressive and corrupt; this

12

James W.Ceaser, the origin and character of American exceptionalism, American political thought, spring

2012.

10

can be considered as a clear warning from the United States which would justify any future intents of

intervention in Europe for the sake of democracy promotion.13

Almost all former presidents have prioritized the idea of national security which would lead

U.S.A to take many actions to support its stability. However, American interest gradually shifted

from national security to promoting democracy.

The U.S president Woodrow Wilson believed that the United states was divinely charged to

lead other nations, and he clearly stated that U.S.A will not only keep possible threats away from the

nation, but it will also try to teach democracy starting with its neighbors.

Other presidents that succeeded Wilson have undoubtedly followed his path, drifting towards

more democracy promotion which will rapidly increase the American interventionism in almost

every corner of the world. After the Second World War, the United States has played a major role in

enlarging and deepening democracy in Latin America and Western Europe. U.S.A’ experiences in

promoting democracy has been marked to be beneficial for U.S economic and political interests

more than accomplishing the aims of democracy in those regions. For example, it was proven that

one of the main aims of U.S intervention in Latin America was to protect the invaluable resources in

the regions for extraction in the future. Since the end of the Cold War, The U.S. relations in Latin

America reveal that U.S.A changed its perceptions of gaining friendly governments by promoting

“low-intensity” of democracy in Latin American countries, which is a kind of democracy that is

more close to a dictatorship. Thus, whenever the leaders of such democracies threatened the U.S.

interests, there would be a direct intervention to undermine or overthrow these governments.

Examples of U.S intervention in Latin America Include Haiti, Cuba, and The Dominican

Republic .In 1915, President Sam’s government collapsed in Haiti. The U.S. sent military

13

Ibid.

11

reinforcements to stabilize the country; later the U.S government forced the new president Philippe

Dartiguenave to sign a treaty, prohibiting Haiti from increasing the public debt without the U.S

approval. The agreement was required for further amendments for the treaty, the thing which

aroused the Haitians and made them revolt against the U.S policies. In Cuba, The U.S. maintained a

military presence between 1917 and 1923. The U.S. commanders intervened by managing Cuban

national finances. After the assassination of President Caceres in 1911, the U.S. occupied the

Dominican Republic in order to contain the chaos; however, Dominicans viewed the intervention

with hostility and engaged in guerrilla attacks against the U.S. forces.14

In the other side, the Middle East has taken a significant part of the US foreign policy during

the cold war for three main objectives: containing the Soviet Union and communism, securing

petroleum supplies and ensuring the survival of Israel.15

After the collapse of the Soviet Union,

democracy promotion started shaping its forms in the Middle East through the Arab-Israeli conflicts.

It was believed that the democratization of the Palestinian authorities would be the best way of

peacemaking with Israel in the Arab region; democracy promotion during this period remained a

limited aspect of the American foreign policy. For the United States, the Middle East has not been a

fertile ground for democracy, taking Israel and some Arab States like Kuwait and Jordan as an

exception.16

During George W.Bush presidency, exporting democracy has been highly regarded as being

recommended in the Arab regions to build democratic states that would never go to war against each

14

Gilbert, Steven, "The U.S. Policy of Democracy Promotion in Latin America" Senior Honors Theses,

2008,Paper 148.

15 Katerina dalacoura, US foreign policy and democracy promotion in the Middle East: Theoretical

perspectives and policy recommendations, July 2010. P59. 16

Ibid. p62.

12

other or to sponsor terrorism against other democracies; so, combating terrorism has become a

central aspect of the U.S foreign policy which strongly associated with the aims of promoting

democracy. After 09/11 attacks, building other countries’ democracy like Iraq to remove

authoritarian regimes was based on a set of neoconservatives’ ideas, among which that the United

States has a moral duty to promote democracy as well as to attain strategic interests; Secondly, they

consider military intervention as a necessity to abolish dictatorship; thirdly, they believed that

democracy is compatible with all cultures despite any social or religious obstacles.

“we have a place, all of us, and a long story, a story we continue but whose end we will not

see, it is a story of a new world that became a friend and liberator of the old, the story of a slave

holding society that became a servant to freedom, the story of a power that went to the world, to

protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer” (George W.Bush, 2001) 17

Bush has demonstrated the uniqueness of the American nation and recognized it as a leading

power in the new world, a power that has no empirical inclinations, but rather it has a mission to

spread freedom around the globe. However, the credibility of this mission has been put into some

serious doubts because of the rockiness of its policies in accomplishing its aims while it seems to

work only for the U.S national interests.

3. Definition of National Interests

National interest is “that which is deemed by a particular state (actor) to be a … desirable

goal”18

, the achievement of this goal will bring positive benefits for the actor. The attainment of the

interest could foster political, economic, security and/or moral wellbeing of the masses and the state

17

President George W. Bush's Inaugural Address, January 20, 2001. 18

G.R Berridge and Alan James, a dictionary of diplomacy, Hampshire, UK: Plagrave- Mcmillan,

2003,p181.

13

(actor), or the national enterprise to which they belong19

. This should be applied on both the actor’s

territory and his external relations. For the United States, the executive body of the federal

government has the major responsibility to determine the national interests and to address the needs

and external aspirations outside its borders20

.

An interest stands as the base and the leading direction in the formulation of any policy;

nation’s interests have always been attached to foreign policy, in which those statesmen tend to think

and act in terms of interests21

. It is believed that interests should intend to tell the policymaker why

and how much he should care about an issue. It helps to decide what kind and how much attention

should be given to the challenges, threats and opportunities raised. Interests also assist the

policymaker to recognize the key issues during the formulation process of the policy, as an example:

How can the current world events affect U.S interests? Are the opposite forces able to influence

negatively those interests? Are the necessary equipments available to protect those interests? And

finally how much power is needed to defend those interests? Therefore, the understanding of the

interests helps to determine the degree of significance that should be given to an issue22

.

It is believed by some political scientists that national interests have permanent features in the

international system. So, regardless of which government is in power, the nation’s interests remain

19

Robert D. Blackwill, « A Taxonomy for defining US National security interests in the 1900s and beyond »,

1993 p20. 20

Ibid. P20. 21

J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr, ed. U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues, Volume II:

National Security Policy and Strategy.3rd

edition 22

Ibid. p5 (qtd in Michael G. Roskin, National Interest: From Abstraction to Strategy, Carlisle, PA: Strategic

Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, May 20, 1994, p. 17)

14

fixed in the process of any policy making. This signifies that the United States has core interests

which have been shaped since its existence.23

However, some theorists argued that interests can be changed according to the policymaker’s

vision at any particular time which is “a diverse, pluralistic set of subjective preferences that change

periodically, both in response to the domestic political process itself and in response to shifts in the

international environment. The national interest therefore is more likely to be what the policymakers

say it is.”24

Like the United States, its national interests have witnessed fixed and changed ones over

time because of the continuous change in world conditions and some domestic consideration of

politics.

3.1. The relationship between National interests and democracy building.

Taking part of the preamble of constitution, which the national security strategies have been

drafted during Bill Clinton administration, identified three essential interests: “provide for the

common sense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our

posterity”, these interests were shaped in modern day national security strategies: “enhancing

security at home and abroad (security), promoting prosperity (economic well-being) and promoting

democracy and human rights (democratic values)” , These three modern core interests can be defined

as25

:

Security: “Protection of the people (both at home and abroad), territory, and institutions of the

United States against potential foreign dangers.”26

Protecting the US homeland has been always the

23


National Security Policy and Strategy, p5. 24

Ibid. p 5(qtd in Graham Evans and Jeffrey Newnham, The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations,

London, UK: Penguin Books, 1998, p. 345) 25

Ibid.p5 (qtd in NSS, December 2000, p. 1) 26

Ibid. p6 (qtd in Neuchterlein, 1973, p. 8)

15

top priority of its government. However, in the beginning of the 19th

century, this core interest was

broadening to include the protection from the danger of weapons of mass destruction.

Economic well-being: “Promotion of (American) international trade and investment, including

protection of United States private economic interests in foreign countries.27

Democratic values: until the 20th

century, this core interest was limited on ensuring that the

American main principles of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are respected in the domestic

democratic process. This notion has expanded into the world in the 21st century to include human

rights and democracy promotion abroad. 28

All the three mentioned core interests have been developed to a forth core interest thanks to

the American experience in the first and second world war:

Stable and secure world order: in which it based on the establishment of a peaceful international

environment where its nations do not go to war against each other; this would include too the

protection of the American Alliances and coalitions as to ensure the stability of the countries which

the US may have its economic interests at risk. 29

Conclusion

Democracy is one of U.S most important national purposes in order to ensure a stable world,

safe for American strategic interests in specific areas; as to guarantee the security of its borders from

any unexpected harm which may threaten its existence in the world. In the past 20 years, building

democracy has been particularly a significant part of U.S foreign policy. After 09/11, The Muslim

27

Ibid. p6 (qtd in NSS, December 1999, pp. iii and 1) 28

Ibid. p6 (qtd in NSS, December 1999, pp. iii and 1) 29


National Security Policy and Strategy, p6. (qtd in NSS, 1999, p. 2)

16

world in general and the Middle East Specifically has been the central scene in which American

governments seek to promote democracy as a strategic priority.

As believed by the policymakers: “we have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies.

(Only) our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow,”30

So,

Undoubtedly, American administrations have followed its interests in the Arab world in which it has

seen marvel benefits such as economic prosperity, for that reason it sought to establish and protect

its interests there.

30

Ibid. p11 (qtd in Lord Palmerstone, as quoted in Anthony Jay, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of Political

Quotations, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 284)

Chapter II

U.S Interests in the Middle East

17

Introduction

The U.S had always been known as an isolationist country, in which it didn’t want to

intervene in world affairs in order to protect its worldwide interests as well as its security. However,

this policy marked to be changed during the world wars once The U.S sight that its national security

interest were in serious hazard. After the end of the two World Wars and with the break of the Cold

War, U.S.A realized that it was high time to change its foreign policy towards the world, neo-

conservatives in specific stressed on the urge to start intervening in strategic regions in order to

preserve U.S national interests. Indeed, U.S.A started intervening in nearby countries under the name

of democracy promotion in order to protect its own interests. However, after 9/11 attacks, USA has

largely directed its attention toward the Middle East, using “war on terror” and limiting the

possession of mass destruction weapons as a justification. Iraq represents a good sample for war on

terror, which is an integral part of democracy promotion, in order to stop terror among the oppressed

Iraqi people specifically and the Middle East in general. Nevertheless, it was proven that U.S.A has

used such ideal justifications in order to fulfill its interests.

1. American interests in the Middle East.

Since the beginning of the 20th

century, the United States has volunteered to spread

democracy and grant freedom to all nations of the world. Indeed, It stood to make many notable

interventions in some of the most remarkable conflicts in the world, especially where its interests

were in serious hazard .For instance, In 1890, the United States overthrew the independent Kingdom

of Hawaii and annexed it to its territories, while many civil wars have taken place in nearby

countries, such as in Panama, Cuba, and Honduras in 1912 in order to protect the US interests.

18

However, after the Second World War, and with the drastic change in the world as well as

regions of influence and threat for U.S.A, the attention of the US governments had instantly shifted

its considerations towards the Middle East.

The U.S.A had started thinking thoroughly about intervening in the Middle East for five main

reasons. Firstly; some Middle Eastern countries imposed a direct threat to U.S interests in the region

such as Iran and Iraq. Secondly, Gulf countries became highly influential and powerful in the world

as their lucrative oil incomes strengthened their economy, and U.S.A would definitely want to

befriend such countries. Moreover, terrorism was an unexpected enemy for U.S.A that would

presumably threaten the new democratic countries. In addition, U.S.A had met a new invaluable ally

that would play a major role as a sphere of influence and intimidation in the region, which is Israel.31

Generally, the U.S.A had tried to put a hand in the Middle East in order to avoid serious

threats such as those of the U.S.S.R and the nuclear threat if Iran, as well as gaining indispensable

allies such as Israel and the Arab Gulf countries which would serve both of the economic and

political interests of the United States. However, the intervention in Iraq has manifested a grave

controversy with the break of the 21st century.

Concerning the existence of weapons of mass destructions in the Middle East, which was an

excuse under which the United States accused Iran and Iraq of possessing them. The United States

expressed its serious worries about such immensely destructive weapons as soon as they were

developed; therefore, the U.S government stressed on limiting the possession of such weapons.

31 Bruce W. Jentleson, Andrew M. Exum, Melissa G. Dalton and J. Dana Stuster, Strategic adaptation toward

a new U.S strategy in the Middle East, 2012.

19

After the attacks of 9/11, Bush administration declared war against terrorism as well as the

possession of weapons of mass destruction, which were undertaken under one policy called

“National Security Strategy”. Terrorism, according to U.S.A, originated from the Middle East, or at

least the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks were Middle Eastern. U.S.A would later on

announce that it would use sheer military force against countries that possess weapons of mass

destruction or harbor terrorism, and this was the case of Afghanistan, which was presumably the

home of the infamous terrorist Osama Bin Laden, and he was eventually found and killed there in

2011.

However, in the case of Iraq, there were no serious threats on the part of Iraq against the

United States, but U.S.A would claim that war on Iraq was a necessary tactic to combat terrorism

,George W.Bush clearly enunciated the actions that the United States would take after the 9/11

attacks:

“Our first priority is to get help to those who have been injured and to take every

precaution to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further attacks”32

So the terrorist attacks on September the eleventh 2001that targeted U.S.A, the protector of

freedom and democracy, left the country with no other options except declaring war on terrorism as

president Bush explains in his speech. This sentiment led to the creation of the “war on terror” under

which U.S.A would intervene in many countries around the world, mostly in the Middle East. U.S.A

claimed that such direct interventions in these countries were necessary measures in order to avoid

any further terrorist disasters. U.S.A also called war on terror the preventive war, a war to prevent a

much fiercer war and prevent the expansion of terrorism in the world. 32

Post 09/11 Speech, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMiqEUBux3o.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMiqEUBux3o

20

Interests of the United States have been centered in the Middle East ever since the end of the

Second World War and it has been quite obvious that the United States marked Iraq specifically as

its top priority in the Middle East.

After the dreadful attacks of 9/11, the United States had declared that it is high time to combat

terrorism, in his post 9/11 attacks speech; Bush announced that the United States will take serious

resolutions to eliminate terrorism.

« ….our grief is turned to anger, and anger to resolution, whether we bring our

enemies to justice, or brings justice to our enemies, justice will be done »33

In the above passage, it is clear that the United States knew the identities of the terrorists

responsible for the attacks, and it was ready to bring justice upon them.

The United States would afterwards start a series of interventions in many Middle Eastern countries,

such as in Afghanistan, Iran, and finally Iraq. In the latter, the intervention resulted in one of the

fiercest urban wars.

The main reason behind U.S interference in the Middle East is to maintain balance of

international powers. U.S.A doesn’t want to be matched in power, especially nuclear weaponry, and

clearly Russia and China posed some serious threats in that matter. So, interfering in less powerful

countries in the Middle East which are in strategic positions, close to Russia and China, would be a

great way to maintain these adversaries.34

33

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm8Nt77C-u4 34

Carl Kaysen, and Steven E.Miller. War with Iraq: Cost, Consequences, and Alternative. Occasional Paper,

American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Cambridge, Mass., December 2002.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm8Nt77C-u4

21

In the name of democracy promotion, Bush administration provided a costly budget to wage

the war on Iraq. This decision invoked a serious debate in the government which resulted in

opponents and proponents of the war, both sides had convincing arguments and views towards the

war. The proponents of the war on Iraq argued that it is a necessary procedure in order to avoid any

further threats or terrorist attacks on U.S.A; in addition, striking terrorism in its origin would

definitely remove it drastically. Moreover, in order to promote democracy in Iraq and free the people

from the tyranny of its leader Saddam Hussein, U.S.A decided to remove him from his position.

Bush administration accused Saddam Hussein of multiple human rights abuses and of repeatedly

menacing and attacking his neighbors, as well as supporting international terrorism, in addition to

possessing weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, the opponents of the war on Iraq

criticized the war because of the huge it required, which were far more than what Bush

administration predicted, they also stressed on the possibility of moving the war to U.S.A, since

losing the war is possible.

2. Background about neo-conservatism

The main proponents of the war on Iraq were the neoconservatives. Neo-conservatism is an

intellectual movement that emerged in the 1960s; it was an anticommunist movement that appeared

after Liberalism entered its crisis phase and its separation. The movement was born after the Berkley

Free Speech movement, in which professors Nathan Glazer and Seymour Lipset launched a serious

ideological attack on the left, and thus they were labeled as the first neoconservatives. However, the

term did not come to a common use until the early 1970s (the third age of neo-conservatism), after

the democratic party won the elections, and with the beginning of the struggle against isolationism.

22

The main aim of neo-conservatism at that time was to strengthen social stability and promote

liberal principles. Concerning social stability, the American socioeconomic status was decent at that

time, but the serious matter that made neo-conservatives concerned at that time was the loss of the

precious American values and the corruption of manners which undermined the social infrastructure

of the American society, the main reason behind such unfortunate crisis was the emergence of

individualism, Americans at that time tended to favor self-interest over family or community.35

The ideology of contemporary neo-conservatism is built upon three main principles. Firstly, it

derives from a pure religious belief that the human condition is defined as a choice between good

and evil, and that true politics is determined by the willingness of human beings to confront good

and evil. Secondly, neoconservatives assert that the fundamental determinant of the relationship

between states rests on the military power and the willingness to use it. And thirdly,

neoconservatives set the Middle East and Islam as their primary focus for American overseas

interests.

3. Neoconservatives’ vision of national interests

By putting such principles into practice, neoconservatives follow a set of procedures in order

to fulfill their goals. They analyze the global scene objectively, and they also try to preserve morals

and protect them, because they hold the moral ground that gives them the duty to transmit them all

over the world. They also focus on the unipolar power of the United States, considering the massive

military power of the U.S as the only means of foreign policy; U.S.A can ensure that everything

works according to its ideals, making sure to reinforce that with military power if necessary. Putting

35 Justin Vaise, Neo-conservatism: The Biography of a Movement, Harvard University Press, 2010.

23

military power as the primary resource of international politics, neoconservatives are hostile towards

nonmilitary organizations as well as international treaties and agreements.36

Apparently, neoconservatives carried out the exceptionalism of the American nation in a more

contemporary manner. However, neoconservatives have a very pessimistic view towards human

nature, they think that the world is corrupt and it is in a dire need for complete reform, a reform that

only neoconservatives know how to undertake, and it can only be done by sheer military power,

because violence is the only universal language that everyone understands. So, the idea of

democracy promotion was born with the neoconservative school of thought, neoconservatives such

as William Kristol and Robert Kagan believe that America’s moral goals and international interest

are harmonious, meaning that America has a clear understanding of how an ideal democratic country

should be, where every citizen is free and respectful of other fellow citizens, and only U.S.A has an

urgent mission to transmit such ideals to the world.

After the end of the two world wars and the cold war which were full of hostility and

destruction, and the last one was likely to turn to a nuclear war, the world expected the United States

to isolate itself from the world and return to the state it was in before the break of the wars; however,

U.S.A surprisingly emerged as an interventionist country after the wars, and it went on intervening

in every international conflict without hesitation in the name of promoting democracy and the

American ideals and values to the world. During the 1990s, U.S.A maintained military bases around

the world which served as surveillance centers and enabled U.S.A to act rapidly in the case of any

conflicts in those regions, this is a procedure that was immensely reinforced after the 9/11 attacks,

36

Stefan Halper, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, Cambridge University Press,

2004.

http://www.google.dz/search?hl=fr&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Stefan+Halper%22

24

after which U.S.A insisted on increasing the deployment of U.S military existence around the world,

especially in the Middle East.

Probably, the first intervention that U.S.A made in the 1990s was in the Persian Gulf War.

During the war, U.S.A didn’t make any military intervention; but instead, President Bush Senior

incited the Iraqis to act against Saddam Hussein and force him to resign, and U.S.A offered its full

military assistance for Iraqis to help them do so. Iraqis were influenced by such encouragements and

started a series of protests and uprisings against their tyrant leader, which had stirred Saddam

Hussein and made him commit one of the most vicious crimes in history, killing perhaps 20,000

Kurds and 30,000–60,000 Shiites, many of them were innocent civilians.37

U.S.A continued such interventions around the world, such as in Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Haiti,

Liberia and many more countries, interventions which have always resulted in bloodshed and the

death of many civilians, which raises a very important question, do interventions and the elimination

of tyrant leaders always result in more democratic countries?

Interventions by U.S.A have always resulted in horrific consequences, leading to the death of

hundreds of thousands, most of which were innocent civilians. The reason behind such catastrophes

is the hostility that originates after U.S intervention in other countries’ personal matters, which puts

U.S mission to promote democracy into question. Apparently, U.S attempts to promote democracy

have most likely resulted in less democratic countries, it is very easy to replace tyrant leaders with

others who are more compliant with U.S policies, but it is a much harder task to calm the people

down. Democracy seems to be undermined rather than reinforced with superpower interference,

37 Benjamin A. Valentino, The True Costs of Humanitarian Intervention The Hard Truth About a Noble

Notion, Foreign affairs, November-December 2011, Volume 9 Number 6

25

especially if there is military force involved, which became the core of U.S foreign policy after 9/11,

and that enrages people of target countries, and it most likely a good reason of boosting terrorism.

U.S.A used military power to spread democracy in the recent years because of the lack of accurate

information about such countries, and thus U.S government would resort to military force to avoid

any further complications. U.S government would also rush to intervene in such countries under the

excuse that an intervention made by a democratic superpower in such countries is better than an

intervention made by a non-democratic superpower, in order to put an end to tyranny, and that was

the neoconservatives’ stand point before intervening in the Middle East.38

4. The Bush war on terror after 09/11 events

In the aftermath of 9/11, neo-conservatism became one of the most influential factions on U.S

foreign policy, so much so that both of supporters and critics of neoconservatives agreed that neo-

conservatism is an ideology that is committed to promote democracy for political and moral

purposes. However, this has not been the case before 1990, promoting democracy to the world has

always been a secondary objective before that, and U.S government had other priorities to take care

of, which made enlightening other countries with democracy a trivial matter to U.S.A. And

eventually, after the traumatic events that took place in the 1990s starting with the Gulf war, which

intrigued the U.S government’s interests, neoconservatives subsequently prioritized strategic

interests over moral ones in order to preserve America’s sovereignty.39

38 William Easterly, Shanker Satyanath and Daniel Berger, Superpower Interventions and their Consequences

for Democracy: An Empirical Inquiry, 2008. 39

Maria Ryan, Neo-conservatism and the New American Century, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

26

4.1. US-Iraq relations

U.S.A had always put an eye on Iraq and started looking for good excuses in order to

intervene in the country, this started in the 1990s during the Gulf war. During and after the war,

U.S.A had exercised and immense pressure on Saddam Hussein in order to put an end to the

Dictator’s mayhem ; however, such interventions had made Saddam Hussein surprisingly stronger

and eventually he ended up killing thousands of his own people. And U.S.A had been silent about

Saddam’s deeds ever since, which was quite ambiguous at that time, and people around the world

started questioning the credibility of democracy promotion that U.S.A claimed to undertake and

serve around the world.

On the other hand, ever since 9/11 attacks, the Republicans seized the golden chance to use

terrorism as their winning card of elections, nominating George W.Bush as their candidate. This

witty political strategy had worked marvelously, as Republicans used the fear of people from

terrorism in their advantage during their campaign, namely by diverting the attention of people from

the devastated state of economy to terrorism and how to terminate it. In addition, if the Republicans

succeeded in waging a war on terrorism in the Middle East, this would offer U.S.A a great chance to

take over the immense oil resources of Iraq, and thus feed the country’s economy and amend it, in

addition to fueling U.S military power.

4.2. Waging war on Iraq

Naturally, U.S government had offered a simple and more plausible explanation for such war

for the citizens of U.S.A and the world in general. U.S government assumed that Saddam Hussein

had possessed and manufactured weapons of mass destruction, which U.S.A had always stressed on

limiting the possession of such weapons, and Saddam Hussein denied possessing such weapons,

27

while U.S.A insisted that they existed within the country and it is high time to confiscate or destroy

them. U.S.A had always planned to put Saddam Hussein away from his position and punish him for

the crimes he had committed against his people.

Republicans also insisted on waging the war as soon as possible, specifically, in the winter of

2002/2003. The Republicans claimed that if the military intervention on Iraq is not made by that

time, the tyranny and power of Saddam Hussein would spread and infect other neighboring

countries. However, the winter of 2002/2003 coincided with the U.S presidential campaign, which

couldn’t be a more suitable chance to use the war as a way to win tremendous numbers of voters.

Nevertheless, U.S.A overlooked the option of letting Iran invade Iraq in order to avoid

American casualties and spend less funds on war, providing Iran with necessary military assistance,

two enemies of the United States would engage in battle afterwards, and the winner would probably

be too devastated to stand against U.S intervention.

However, U.S.A wouldn’t take such option for fear of a very unwelcome scenario. By letting

Iran invade Iraq, and presuming that Iran would win the war against Iraq, Iran could win the war

without having to suffer major casualties. That can happen considering the fact that most of Iraqis

are Shiites, and they were oppressed by Saddam Hussein, so they can be of great help to Iran and

bring serious damage by collaborating with Iran. Eventually, Iran could get out of the war victorious

and prosperous at the same time, then Iran won’t have to comply with U.S demands and easily turn

against it, if not wage a war on the latter, and U.S.A would have to fight another superpower that

would probably be of greater caliber than U.S.S.R, regarding the fact that Iran would take over the

lucrative oil resources of Iraq after invading it.

28

Besides oil resources, another important goal that U.S government seeks to achieve after

invading Iraq is the strategy of nation building. Under the excuse of searching for weapons of mass

destruction, the United Stated have always wanted to spread democracy in the Middle East, a

strategy that was called “nation building” in order to build another democratic nation in the Middle

East, and this will enable U.S.A to control a very strategic region of the world.

This ambitious mission has led U.S.A to suffer from immense casualties so far in order to

accomplish it. U.S.A had spent more than 200 billion dollars and sacrificed the lives of more than

2000 American military personnel during the invasion of Iraq; this has aroused American citizens,

especially families of lost deceased soldiers. U.S government was so committed to this mission that

President Bush and his advisors never hesitated during the mission of reshaping Iraq into a model

democracy, despite the fact that the security environment in Iraq was highly hostile, full of rebels

and civil wars, and the American soldiers were in dire hazard since they entered the country.

In addition, public opinion surveys in the Middle East showed massive hostility towards U.S

policies. However, recent studies showed that such hostility did not have anything to do with the

American culture, but instead they were reactions to the American policies, especially those

concerned with democracy promotion. The 9/11 Commission Report showed that hostility in the

Islamic world was direct result of specific US policies. Likewise, the Pentagon’s Defense Science

Board Task Force Report on Strategic Communication that was issued in September 2004

concluded: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies.”40

40 Ted Galen Carpenter, The Imperial Lure: Nation Building as a US Response to Terrorism, New York

Times Magazine, 17 October 2004.

29

Conclusion

U.S.A has always been ambiguous concerning the matter of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S.A had offered its full support for Iraq when Saddam used chemical weapon against Iran and his

people in early 1990s, and in fact U.S.A offered its help for the so called tyrant in committing one of

the worst crimes in history; U.S government even offered him means to manufacture such weapons.

Similarly Bush senior also authorized Saddam’s massacre against the Shiites in 1991, which was

presumably in the interest of achieving stability in the region. All these ambiguous facts show that

U.S.A has been unclear about its allegations concerning Iraq, and U.S.A even went on waging the

war on Iraq in the basis of such contradicting accusations, but the most important matter is to what

extent was U.S.A successful in achieving its interests, and what were the impacts of the war in

U.S.A and the world.

Chapter III

U.S Democracy Promotion and its national interests

In Iraq: Evaluation.

30

Introduction

Waging war on Iraq has been largely debatable in the worldwide. Many political and

economic analysts have examined deeply the effects of this war which aimed to promote

democracy for Iraq on US national interests; as they tried to assess whether democracy

promotion as a major tool of the US foreign policy is a successful or a failed one through

conducting polls and analyzing political speeches about war in Iraq. Many have argued that

there is a direct link between building democracy and US national interests, in which that

democracy promotion has another facet behind its noble aims which is to serve the US

national interest. Iraq represents a rigid scene in which democracy promotion proved to have

no credibility as reaping crucial results on the US national and foreign interests.

1. The aims behind war on Iraq

On October 2002, the congressional resolution has given the permission to intervene

and use military force in Iraq in order “to defend the national security of the United States

against the continuous threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant United Nations’ security

council resolutions regarding Iraq.”41

The major aim of UN Security Council was to disarm

Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and remove Saddam Hussein’s regime. Donald

Rumsfeld, former of US security of defense, declared on September 18, 2002:

41

William D.Nordhaus, The economic consequences of a war with Iraq, 2002, chapter3 p51. (qtd in

H.j.res.114 (October 2002) )

31

“No living dictator has shown the murderous combination of intent and

capability of aggression against his neighbors; the oppression of his own people, genocide;

support of terrorism; pursuit weapons of mass destruction; and the most threatening hostility

to its neighbors …” (Rumsfeld, 2002) 42

So according to this description of Saddam Hussein and his tyrant regime, the US

government has seen an urge to smash it and establish democratic institutions for the Iraqi

people.

Another aim for declaring war on Iraq was to protect the American homeland, people

and institutions from terrorist attacks, to achieve this interest; U.S Military has to destroy the

terrorist infrastructure using force. As declared by George W.Bush, on June 17, 2004:

“He (Saddam Hussein) was a threat because he had used weapons of mass

destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy of the

United States of America, just like Al Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist

connections.” (Bush, 2004) 43

Moreover, U.S.A had to prevent the rise of Iraq as a dominant power in the Persian

Gulf region, in order to protect Iraq’s energy infrastructure against sabotage or foreign

attacks, aiming to ensure that U.S.A and world energy markets would have access to its

resources, especially it is believed by experts that Iraq has a massive oil resources, in which it

42

US-Iraq War, Did Saddam Hussein and his regime pose a threat to the United States and its allies?

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=855&print=true 43

Ibid http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=855&print=true

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=855&print=true

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=855&print=true

32

reserves 10% of the world assured resources44

. In 2002, the U.S energy information agency

stated that:

“Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the

world (after Saudi Arabia) along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible

resources. Iraq’s true resource potential may be far greater than this …” 45

Thus, controlling Iraq oil reserves and excluding any competition in the region there

have been considered the key driver of the war. The main question behind all the previously

mentioned aims is: Has war on Iraq made the United States safer? Additional questions can

be summarized in: what effects have this war on US ‘interests? And what have been the

overall costs and benefits of Iraq war to the US National interests?

2. The impact of the Iraq war on US National interests.

It is generally expressed by the public and policy makers that war costs can be ignored

if costs in dollars or even blood are acceptably low. However, if the causalities estimated by

thousands of million; the price of oil increased rapidly; the war pushed the economy into high

taxation and recession; and if the United States becomes a rejected and hated country because

of the vicious attacks on civilian people and innocent populations, then the decision makers in

44

William D.Nordhaus, The economic consequences of a war with Iraq, 2002, chapter3 p 52. 45

Ibid (qtd in www.eia.doe.gov)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/

33

the white house and the Congress have to be more conscious about their decisions concerning

launching war and protecting U.S National interests.46

2.1. Human costs

Taking these aspects into consideration, the costs of the Iraq war has been viewed by

many critics of American policy toward Iraq as a disaster.47

“It seems fair to conclude that after five years of war, the sacrifice of almost

4,000 American lives and the expenditure of an estimated $ 1 trillion and counting, we have

accomplished absolutely nothing in Iraq.” 48

(The Atlanta journal constitution editorial)

The toll of deaths among the U.S troops had reached 3,000 in 2006 and the total

causalities including injuries have topped 17,000 by 2005.49

In March 2008, casualties of U.S

Military in the war on Iraq reached 4,000.The following chart will illustrate the facts behind

those deaths.50

46

Ibid p51 (qtd in the New York review of books, December 5,2002) 47

John Duffield, Peter Dombrowski, Balance Sheet: the Iraq war and US National security, 2009, p3. 48

Ibid. p 03. 49

Raymond Hinnebusch, The American invasion of Iraq : Causes and Consequences, 2007,p24 (qtd in

Reuters, 13 November 2003) 50

Gordon L. Bowen, Understanding US foreign policy: US Deaths in the war in Iraq, 2003-present. (Source:

http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/USCombatDeathsInIraq,2003.2008.htm)

http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/USCombatDeathsInIraq,2003.2008.htm

34

Figure 1

This chart was published in the Washington post (March25, 2008) which clearly shows how

death toll has rapidly increased in the period 2004-2008. Another chart below shows the

States most military personnel belonged to and their numbers (figure2) :

35

The above results show that the American society was deeply affected by the death of its

youth aged between 18-21 (30%), 22-24 (24.2%) and 25-30 (25%) in the Iraq war.

2.2. Social costs

Moreover, those survivors who went back to their country, including the U.S militants

have suffered a deep psychological impact. The war of Iraq has affected the American

families in which higher rates of suicide and mental illness, increased drug and alcohol

dependency, higher rates of violence including homicide and child abuse, were recorded

among the returning veterans.51

Also, higher risk behaviors have resulted in high numbers of

war crashes and drug overdoses, homelessness and divorce, in addition to clinical levels of

stress among the children.52

2.3. Economic costs

Another important impact of the war was on the level of the U.S economy in which

unexpected consequences have contributed in Oil crisis.

51

http://costsofwar.org/article/us-veterans-and-military-families (qtd in Headquarters, department of the

Army, « Army 220, Generating Health discipline in the force, January 19, 2012) 52

Ibid.

http://costsofwar.org/article/us-veterans-and-military-families

36

Before war on Iraq, the neoconservatives have promised that the cost of the war would

be carried by Iraq itself thanks to its massive oil resources, or that Europe, Asia and the Gulf

Arab States would pay for it53

; but instead, the results were unexpected, the war costs to U.S

treasury reached $ 204.4 billion by 2005. The combination of Tax cuts and military

adventures made by Bush administration had turned the $ 127 billion budget surplus of 2001

into a $ 374 billion deficit in the beginning of the war in 200354

; war spending has stimulated

the U.S national economy to a far extent in which the excess in military expenditure with

high domestic consumption and low taxes has slowed the economic growth and reduced

employment; which rendered the Bush administration completely powerless.

The Economic Council claimed that: “the successful prosecution of the war would be

good for the U.S economy.” 55

(Lindsey, 2002), which means that a successful war in Iraq

would contribute in keeping oil prices low, but unfortunately that didn’t work with U.S.A.

The wall Street Journal editorial has argued that “the best way to keep oil prices in check is a

short, successful war on Iraq.”56

(Stigliz and Bilmes, 2008 p218)

So, the common belief that oil was the main reason for the war on Iraq seemed to be

correct for many analysts. U.S.A went to war to assure inexpensive supply of oil. The moves

of U.S.A to privatize the Iraqi oil industry since the start of the war was seen as a great and

53

Raymond Hinnebusch, the American invasion of Iraq: causes and consequences, 2007, p24. 54

Ibid. p24 (qtd in Eric leaver, “the costs of Quagrime,” foreign policy in focus, 14 september 2005,http//

www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/ ) 55

Qtd in the congressional record : proceedings and debates of the 107th

congress, (from the wall Street

journal, september17,2002) 56

Mamdouh G. Salameh, the oil “Price Rise” factor in the Iraq war: A macroeconomic assessment, 2009 (qtd

in Stigliz and Bilmes: the true costs of war).

http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/

37

strong desire of the U.S decision makers and oil companies to have the lion’s share from the

production of Iraq oil. This act will transform Iraqi’s oil from a nationalized one to a

privatized one and more open to U.S control.57

A Further reason which led many analysts to conclude that oil was a major motive for

the war is that when U.S.A was using the weapons of mass destruction issue as a justification

for the invasion of Iraq, North Korea was threatening to develop its own weapons of mass

destruction; but since North Korea didn’t possess any natural resources such as oil, it was

needless or unnecessary for U.S.A to invade it. (Stigliz and Bilmes, 2008 p218-219)

It was clear that the United States wanted oil to influence and dominate the great

Middle East oil fields from which western oil companies were expelled four decades ago.58

War on Iraq was seen by U.S specialists of foreign policy as one step toward a global

economic control over the major supplies of oil.59

Since the beginning of the Iraq war, oil prices have increased from about $ 25/ barrel

to more than $ 130 by May 2008.60

High oil prices started affecting every aspect of U.S

economy, which led to deficits and high inflation pressure. The U.S government had to spend

more on importing oil and interest payments of debts; this situation has misbalanced the U.S

budgets. War on Iraq has undermined the American economy more than it did serve it.

57

Ibid. p45 (qtd in Petroleum review, April 2007,3) 58

Mamdouh G. Salameh, the oil “Price Rise” factor in the Iraq war: A macroeconomic assessment, 2009,

p46. 59

Salameh, June, 2004 p191. 60

Ibid. p47

38

Oil experts had agreed that war has a strong relation with higher prices of oil. In order

to prove that, it would be recommended to ask what would happen to oil prices if there was

no war.

To provide an answer to this question, the Bp statistical review of world energy has

pointed that global oil prices had raised at an average annual rate of 3.0% during the period of

1992-2002.61

So it can be assumed that oil prices would have continued to rise but in the

same rate as shown in table 1:

The Iraq war contribution to the rise in oil prices (2003-2008)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

The average oil price

without war 24.99 25.74 26.51 27.31 28.13 28.97

The average oil price

since war 35.63 45.88 75.20 85.69 90.52 130.0

Proportion to the war 10.64 20.14 48.69 58.38 62.39 101.03

% of war share 30 44 65 68 69 78

Table 1

(Bp Statistical Review of world energy, June, 2008)

To calculate the direct costs of the U.S economy over the period 2003-2008, the U.S

department of energy has provided the extra expenditure on U.S oil imports (Table2):

61

qtd in Bp statistical review of world energy, June 2008, 16.

39

The cumulative Extra Expenditure on US oil imports, 2003-2008

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

65.87 102.92 248.32 298.32 318.81 516.26 1550.5

Table 2

(US Department of energy, June 2008)

So, the extra expenditure of the U.S imported oil has reached $ 1.55 trillion in the period

2003-2008.

Higher oil prices have contributed in making the American people spending less

money. American families had to spend 5 % more of their income on gasoline and heating

than before.62

Also, the U.S government had to cut from other spending to pay the high prices

of oil; this means that there was less production in the American goods due to the deficit in

the American Budget. Moreover, oil prices has led to a decrease in the revenue of the U.S

trading partners, Europe and Japan because of the decrease in exporting and importing with

those countries in comparison to the situation before the Iraq war.

So, to track the U.S costs of the war, a table of the U.S macroeconomic costs of the war

is given:

62

Mamdouh G. Salameh, international politics p 50.

40

The US macroeconomic costs of the war on Iraq

Description Cost in $ billions

Oil price impact

Budgetary impact

2322

1100

Subtotal macroeconomic costs 3422

Plus Budgetary and social economic

costs

Total operations to date

Future operations

Future veterans’ costs

(disability and social security)

Other military costs/ adjustments

646

913

717

404

Subtotal Budgetary costs

Social costs total

2680

415

Grand total 6517

Source: (Stigliz, 2008) and Mamdouh G. Salameh 63

The costs of the war to the U.S economy are stunning. Although the real aim was to

secure Iraqi’s energy resources, the consequences turned out to be the opposite. Furthermore,

the war has affected the stability of the Middle East which has increased future risks on

foreign investments in the region due to the rise rather than the decrease of terrorism, which

was a direct response to the U.S invasion of Iraq and the continuous interference in the

Muslim world.

63

Mamdouh G. Salameh is the director of the oil market consultancy service in the UK, a consultant to the

World Bank in Washington DC on oil and energy and a technical expert of the United Nations Industrial

development organization (UNIDO) in Vienna.

41

2.4. Anti-Americanism

Thus, the final major cost of the war is the loss of respect in global public opinion due

to Bush foreign policies. Arthur Schlesinger wrote that “the global wave of sympathy that

engulfed the US after 09/11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance

and militarism.”64

The Widespread opposition of the war on Iraq has reinforced an anti-American

sentiment. It was believed that the war has made the world a dangerous place rather than a

safer environment for democracy. U.S foreign policies prove a continuous desire to achieve

national interests instead of taking into account the interests of other countries when making

such policies. This anti-American sentiment has rocked the image of U.S.A as a powerful

country and cost the nation its influence overseas.

3. American public opinion about democracy promotion and war on Iraq

After 09/11 attacks, American people have increasingly been influenced by George W.

Bush’ words that freedom at home is largely dependent on the progress of freedom abroad.

“The freedom agenda” launched by Bush has subjected the Americans to realize that the

Middle East is the source of terrorism and a major threat to their homeland. The solution for

U.S.A was to encourage democratic reforms in the Middle East and remove the authoritarian

regimes which give rise to extremism.

64

Raymond Hinnebusch, the American invasion of Iraq, 2007 p26. (qtd in Los Angeles Times, March23,

2003)

42

In May 2006, 49% of Americans said that they believe that democracy can work well

in most of Muslim countries, according to a Pew Global Attitudes survey; only 37% said that

democracy would not work well.65

(Figure3)

Figure3: Can democracy work well in the Muslim Countries?

Source: Pew Global Attitudes Survey, “The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims

View Each Other.” June 22, 2006.

After Bush’s promotion to his freedom Agenda abroad in the period 2003-2005, there

was a general agreement about the importance of supporting democracy as the U.S foreign

policy. 57% of Americans considered the growth of democratic movements in every nation

as a high priority; while 8% said it should not be a priority at all.66

65

Pew Global Attitudes Survey, «The Great divide: How westerners and Muslims view each other» June,

2006. (qtd in David M. DeBartolo, perceptions of US democracy promotion, part two: American views, 2008

p4) 66

David M. DeBartolo, Perceptions of US democracy promotion, Part two: American Views, 2008 p5. (qtd

in CNN/Gallup/USA today, February 8, 2005)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

yes NO

43

Figure 4: How important is it for the US to support the growth of democratic movement in

every nation?

Source: CNN/Gallup/USA Today, Feb. 8, 2005.

The Americans seem to be very excited about promoting democracy abroad, only few didn’t

believe in the necessity of exporting democracy.

As the war on Iraq started, and despite the widespread of discontent with the war, most

Americans believed that war has not weakened the prospect for democracy in the Middle

East. However, after a few years of the war and the increase in the toll of American

casualties, the question of whether U.S.A can effectively help other countries become more

democratic has been raised. Figure 5 represents the American public opinion about the

effectiveness of democracy promotion taking into consideration the consequences of war in

Iraq. The results show a decline in the public support to democracy promotion.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

%

Low priority

High priority

Low priority.

Not a priority at all

44

Figure5: Can the US effectively help other countries become democratic?

Source: Public Agenda and Foreign Policy magazine surveys, April 3, 2007; Oct. 19,

2006; and March 29, 2006.

The departure from Iraq has strongly shaped the American public about whether

declaring war on Iraq worth those entire human and financial costs. According to the Chicago

Council Survey and other polls, the majority of Americans have seen now that war was not

worthy to fight for (67% not worth it, 32% worth it).67

67

Dima Smeltz, Foreign policy in the New Millenium : Results of the 2012 Chicago survey of American

Public Opinion and US foreign policy, 2012, p6.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

January 2006 September 2007 Spring 2007

Only on their own

The US can help

45

Figure 6: Iraq war worth it?

Data prior to 2012: from ABC News/Washington Post polls.

Furthermore, Americans think that war on Iraq has not reduced terrorism (69% up from

61% in 2006)68

instead this war has worsened America’s relations with the Muslim World

while it didn’t lead to the spread of democracy in the Middle East. (Figure 7)

68

Ibid. P6

57 53 53

37 36 36 34

42

33 32

40

45 46

58

63 63 62

55

62

67

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Jul-

03

No

v-0

3

Mar

-04

Jul-

04

No

v-0

4

Mar

-05

Jul-

05

No

v-0

5

Mar

-06

Jul-

06

No

v-0

6

Mar

-07

Jul-

07

No

v-0

7

Mar

-08

Jul-

08

No

v-0

8

Mar

-09

Jul-

09

No

v-0

9

Mar

-10

Jul-

10

No

v-1

0

Mar

-11

Jul-

11

No

v-1

1

Mar

-12

Not worth it

Worth it

46

Figure 7: Statements: Iraq war.

Data prior to 2012: from ABC News/Washington Post polls.

For a limited period of time, the attacks made by U.S.A against Iraq in March 2003

proved its popularity in the United States, eventually the American public opinion has

developed a new viewpoint, which is that almost half of the population believed that war

should not have been launched and it was a huge mistake to invade Iraq.

4. Muslim’s public opinion about democracy promotion and war on Iraq

In the other side of the world, Muslims have seen that war on Iraq was unfair.

Although the war seemed short by overthrowing Saddam Hussein without finding any

weapons of mass destruction, the costs have been so high among the Iraqi civilians. Thus,

estimates of 10,000 Iraqi civilians were dead in about one year of war; while after 4 years

69

68

27

26

28

28

70

71

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

The threat of terrorism has been reduced by war

The war will lead to democracy in the Middle East

The war has worsened America's relations with the Muslim world

The experience of the war should make nations more cautious about using military force to deal with rogue

states

disagree

Agree

47

nearly 60,000 people were dead.69

These costs were not accepted by the Islamic world when

comparing them with the losses of the U.S and British soldiers during and after the war

(about 550-600 in the first year, and in late 2006, it reached 3.000)

In a study issued by James Zogby in 2005, two figures were provided to follow the

change in the perceptions about the United States invasion of Iraq in various Arab States:

Table 4: Public opinion about the US government policies in two different years 2002-2004:

Country April 2002

Percent unfavorable

July 2004

Percent Unfavorable

Egypt 76 98

Saudi Arabia 87 94

Morocco 61 88

Jordan 61 78

Source: Data from “Freedom and Democracy American Style,” Labour and Trade Union Review

(February 2005). http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/freedom-american-style.htm.

Table5: Changes in perceptions about the United States in Various Arab States over the year

from 2004-2005:

Change Egypt Jordan Lebanon Morocco Saudia Arabia UAE

Better 5% 13% 21% 6% 8% 8%

Worse 84% 62% 49% 72% 82% 58%

Same 11% 18% 27% 21% 9% 31%

Source: James Zogby, Attitudes of Arabs, 2005 (Washington, DC: Arab American

Institute/Zogby International/Young Arab Leaders, 2005), 12.

69

Shahrough Alkhavi, Muslim perspectives on the invasion of Iraq: Informed publics, Regime leaders and

Islamic Jurists.

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/freedom-american-style.htm

48

Through the statistics above, the results show that the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims

generally had strongly opposed the U.S invasion to Iraq. Concerning the Arab government,

most of them had shared the same view with their public that war was unjust; however, it was

difficult to oppose U.S.A or stand against it. Furthermore, some of the Arab states like

Kuwait have provided military intelligence and support for U.S war on Iraq, despite the

opposition of the citizens in such countries, which contributed in widening the gap between

the governments and their public. However, much anger has been directed toward U.S.A

accusing it by being the main reason for destruction to the Muslims world. (Figure 8)

Figure 8: Arabs views of US motivations for Iraq war

How important do you think were the following motivations when US went to war with Iraq?

Source: Arab Attitudes survey, 2003-2005.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003

2004

2005

49

The vast majority of the Arab public opinion have rejected the view that U.S.A only

endeavored to spread democracy or human rights in the region (fig 8); people have believed

that the United States was driven by its thirst for oil, help Israel ,and dominate the region to

weaken the Muslim world.70

Most Arabs with 58% have believed that the Middle East has become less democratic

since the Iraq war; while considering democracy as a tool for the U.S government to achieve

its interests in their region.71

Figure 9: The U.S promotes democracy…

Source: Pew Global Attitudes Project, “Final 2007 Trends Topline.” June 27, 2007.

70

Shibley Telhami, America in Arab eyes, 2007 p116. 71

Ibid. p116 (qtd in Arab Attitudes survey, 2005)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Turkey Egypt Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Marocco Palestine

Mostly where it serves its interests

50

In September 2004, the U.S defense department has admitted that “In the eyes of

Muslims, American occupation of Iraq has not led to democracy there but only to more chaos

and suffering. U.S actions appear in contrast to be motivate by ulterior motives and

deliberately controlled to best serve American interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-

determination” 72

5. Democracy promotion: Between success and failure

The high wave of hatred against U.S policies around the world and the high costs of

war in Iraq have made many critics and political analysts anxious to analyze whether war in

Iraq was a valid decision?

Critics argued that neoconservatives’ ideas about “Regime Change” and democracy

support have engaged the United States into many crucial challenges. The former vice

president Walter Mondale has expressed his doubts concerning this issue:

“Turning Iraq into a democracy that would create a wave of reform across the

Mideast, as the neoconservative envision, would be wonderful, Mondale said, but given the

deep, explosive hatreds between the major Iraqi population groups and other potential

72

Shahrough Alkhavi, Muslim perspectives on the invasion of Iraq: Informed publics, Regime leaders and

Islamic Jurists, p15. (qtd in United States department of defense, Washington, DC. , September 2004, 40)

51

compilations, he doubts that the neoconservatives have accurately estimated the duration, the

cost to the US treasury and the ultimate chances for success.” 73

Many other speeches have been conducted assuring that war in Iraq didn’t bring any

democratic reformations and it was considered as a terrible mistake. As stated by Nancy

Pelosi, a majority leader of the U.S house of representatives in June 20, 2005:

“This is a war that each passing day confirms what I have said before and I will

say again: this war in Iraq is a grotesque mistake; it is not making America safer, and the

American people know it.”74

Same view was shared by Robert C. Byrd, a US senator who entitled war on Iraq with

“Mission not accomplished”, he said:

“Is America safer? We have not secured our homeland from terrifying threats of

destruction. This President has sown divisions in our long-standing alliances... No America is

not safer.”75

However, the secretary of State and National Security advisor, Condoleezza Rice has

given a different view, she said in 2004:

73

Eric Black, Neocons and the Iraq war: their view then and now 10 years later, 2013. (qt in

http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/03/neocons-and-iraq-war-their-view-then-and-now-10-years-

later ) 74

Has the Iraq war made America safer? http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000921 75

Ibid. http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000921

http://www.minnpost.com/author/eric-black

http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/03/neocons-and-iraq-war-their-view-then-and-now-10-years-later

http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/03/neocons-and-iraq-war-their-view-then-and-now-10-years-later

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000921

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000921

52

"Our efforts in Iraq have been critical to success in the global war on terror... As

democracy gains in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are reminded that no democratic nation in the

world threatens America. Saddam's removal has advanced peace and democracy throughout

the broader Middle East. America and the world are clearly safer with this tyrant in the jail

cell he has earned."76

So, removing Saddam Hussein was seen as the major benefit from war on Iraq;

neglecting the huge costs paid by the U.S government taken from American public money

and blood.

In 2008, President George W. Bush stated that: “removing Saddam Hussein was the

right decision early in my presidency, it is the right decision now, and it will be the right

decision ever.” 77

But do the American and worldwide public opinion agree with the president

Bush?

In a three polls conducted by Newsweek magazine from 2005 to 2007, to find

American perspectives on whether the Iraq war has or has not made Americans safer from

terrorism: (Table6)

Poll Date

Polled

(adults aged

18 and over)

Has Made

Safer

Has Not

Made Safer Don't Know

Jan. 17-18,

2007 1,003 31% 64% 5%

76

Ibid. 77

Bush defends decision to take down Saddam, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video?id=4430245

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video?id=4430245

53

Oct. 5-6,

2006 1,004 29% 66% 5%

Aug. 2-4,

2005 1,004 28% 64% 8%

2005 to 2007 - Newsweek

The results show that 66% of the Americans think that the Iraq war has not made the

world safer.

Another poll conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes project in 2006 has shown that

majorities in Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Indonesia, and Pakistan believe that war has made the

world a more dangerous place. Interestingly, the same view was shared by the developed

countries like Great Britain and Germany.

Figure 10: War on Iraq to remove Saddam made the world..?

76

68

66

60

44

61

8

74

70

10

54

11

20

7

21

30

17

26

44

16

8

70

12

52

France

Spain

Germany

Great Britain

Russia

Japan

China

Jordan

Turkey

Egypt

Indonesia

Pakistan

More dangerous

A Safer place

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=004414

54

All the Analysis of Statistics and speeches lead to the core question of this study: Did

Democracy fail or succeed in the Middle East?

conclusion

Democracy Promotion in the Middle East has proved to be a failed policy and has no

credibility, since it was based on gaining benefits while no positive results were seen on the

level of the Middle Eastern countries. In fact it has led to many divisions inside the Iraqi

society as well as widespread of violence. On the other side, U.S.A has exposed its national

interests to a crucial danger which led the public opinion and political experts to enquire

about the ulterior motives of Democracy promotion in waging war on Iraq.

x

Conclusion:

The United States of America has been viewed by many people around the world as the

greatest nation; a nation which had experienced many wars and conflicts, and ultimately was built to

be a model for other countries. U.S.A adopted democracy as its political system because of the

valuable principles and ideals which this system of government is built on. USA has remarkably

hold the flag of spreading democracy, believing in the privilege of being an exceptional nation, to

the oppressed countries as their holy mission for the next centuries, starting with its closest

neighbors. However, with the requirements of the 21st century, the purpose of spreading democracy

to such countries seemed to have a profitable aim, although it was said by some critics that the US

democracy was able to achieve some of its aims successfully in some countries which afford it to

become benevolent examples of U.S endeavor to democratize the world.

Nevertheless, the tracking of the U.S political course after the cold war shows the U.S

increased attention in the Middle East. The U.S government has taken democracy promotion as a

tool to guarantee its security and ensure its national interests in the Arab world among which:

energy sources to contain any uncontrolled flow of these sources as to avoid any fierce competition

there like Russia and Iran, while to support and promote its military bases in the region to prevent

any future threats, or any regional conflicts which may threaten its strategic interests as well as the

objective of ensuring Israel’s security and impose a strict control on the spread of non-conventional

weapons.

Iraq is considered as one of the most important regions in the Middle Eastern countries for

American politics because of many significant reasons such as: geographical location and oil

reserves. So, it was clear that the U.S policy makers will include Iraq in their desire to control and

xi

contain the region for future strategic purposes like gaining the advantages and wealth of the Middle

East.

However, the war in Iraq has fueled an anti-American sentiment around the world because of

its non-humanitarian intervention there, as well as the high war costs in terms of money and blood

which was paid by the American government. The American, Muslim and world public opinion saw

that The Iraqi war did the most damage to the reputation of democracy promotion and was a

complete failure on the real ground; on the contrary to the Neoconservatives and the US government

which have claimed that war in Iraq was completely successful by smashing saddam Hussein and his

regime.

xii

References:

Books:

Benjamin A. Valentino. The True Cost of Humanitarian Intervention: the Hard Truth about a

Noble Mission, vol90, number6. Foreign Affairs, December 2011. Print.

Bruce W.Jentelson, Andrew M.Exu, et al. Strategic Adaptation: Toward a New U.S Strategy

in the Middle East. Pennsylvania, U.S.A: Center for a New American Security, 2012. Print.

Carl Kaysen, and Steven E.Miller. War With Iraq: Cost, Consequences, and Alternative.

Occasional Paper, American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Cambridge, Mass., December

2002. Print.

Dina Smeltz. Foreign Policy in the New Millennium: Chicago council survey of American

public opinion and U.S foreign policy. Chicago, U.S.A: Chicago council, 2012. Print.

Frederic Wehrey , Dalia Dassa Kaye, et al. The Iraq Effect: The Middle East After the Iraq

War. Library of congress, U.S.A, 2010. Print.

George Clack, Mildred Sola Neely, et al, ed. Democracy in Brief. Woodrow Wilson

International center for scholars. Print.

Harold Hongju Koh. On American Exceptionalism. thesis. Yale Law School, Yale Law

School Legal Scholarship Repository, 2003, U.S.A. Print.

J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr, ed. U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues,

Volume II: National Security Policy and Strategy.3rd

edition. Department of National Security

and Strategy, U.S.A, June 2008. Print.

John A.Nagl, and Brian M.Burton. After the Fire: Shaping the Future U.S Relationship with

Iraq. Pennsylvania, U.S.A: Center for a New American Security, 2012. Print.

Justin Vaise. Neo-conservatism: a Bibliography of the Movement. Harvard University Press,

U.S.A, 2010. Print.

Lamont Colucci. The National Security Doctrines of the American Presidency: How They

Shape Our Present and Future, vol2, U.S.A. 2012. Web. February 17th

, 2013.

Maria Ryan. Neo-conservatism and the New American Century. Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

Web. February 17th

, 2013.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/1384/carl_kaysen.html?back_url=%2Fpublication%2F3046%2Fwar_with_iraq.html&back_text=Back%20to%20publication

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/150/steven_e_miller.html?back_url=%2Fpublication%2F3046%2Fwar_with_iraq.html&back_text=Back%20to%20publication

http://www.amacad.org/

http://www.google.dz/search?hl=fr&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Lamont+Colucci%22

http://www.google.dz/search?hl=fr&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Maria+Ryan%22

xiii

Noam Chomsky. Interventions, New York Times syndicate essays, New York University,

2007. Web. February 17th

, 2013.

Nora Bensahel, and Daniel L.Byman. The Future Security Environment in the Middle East:

Conflicts, Stability, and Political Change. Library of Congress, U.S.A, 2004. Print.

Shanker Satyanath, Daniel Berger, and William Easterly Superpower Interventions and their

consequences for democracy: An Empirical Inquiry. National Bureau of Economic Research,

2008. Print.

Shibley , Telhami. ‘America in Arab eyes’ Arab Attitudes Survey. University of Maryland,

U.S.A, 2005. Print.

Stefan Halper, and Jonathan Clarke. America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global

Order. Cambridge University Press, New York, U.S.A, 2004. Print.

Steven Gilbert, The U.S. Policy of Democracy Promotion in Latin America. Thesis. Eastern

Michigan University, Senior Honors Theses, 2008. Print.

Thomas Carothers. U.S Democracy Promotion During and After Bush. Carnegie Endowment

for International Peace, Mass, 2007. Print.

Articles:

David M. Debartolo. “Perceptions of U.S. Democracy Promotion Part One: Middle Eastern

Views”. Heinrich Boll Foundation, North America, May 2008. Web. February 17th

, 2013.

David M.DEbartolo. “Perceptions of U.S Democracy Promotion Part Two: American

Views”. Heinrich Boll Stiftung, North America, May 2008. Web. February 17th

, 2013.

James W. Ceaser. “American Exceptionalism, is it Real, is it good? The Origin and Character

of American Exceptionalism” American Political Thought, vol. 1, The Jack Miller Center,

spring 2012. Web. February 17th

, 2013.

Mamdouh G. Salameh . “The Oil Price Rise Factor in the Iraq War: a Macroeconomic

Assessment”: International Politics, Vol. 2, No. III, Winter & Spring 2009.Web. February

17th

, 2013.

Raymond Hinnebusch. “The American Invasion of Iraq: Causes and Consequences”

Perceptions, Institute of Middle East, Central Asia and Caucasus Studies, University of St.

Andrews, Scotland, 2007. Web. March 7th

, 2013.

http://www.google.dz/search?hl=fr&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Stefan+Halper%22

xiv

Samuel P Huntington. “The erosion of American national interests” Foreign Affairs;

Academic Research Library, Sep/Oct 1997. Web. March 7th

, 2013.

Strobe Talbott. “Democracy and the National Interest” council on foreign relations, U.S.A,

November/December 1996. Web. March 7th

, 2013.

Ted Galen Carpenter. “The Imperial Lure: Nation Building as a US Response to Terrorism”,

New York Times Magazine, 17 October 2004. Web. March 7th

, 2013.

Websites:

Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 107th Congress Second Session:

Vol.148 Part 12 (September 2002) .Web. January 26th

2013.

David Petraeus. “Has the Iraq War made America safer?” ProCon.org, September 11th

2007.

Web. February 2nd

2013.

Gordon L. Bowen. “Understanding U.S. Foreign Policy U.S. Deaths in the War in Iraq, 2003-

present”. Mary Baldwin College, Staunton, Political Science. Web. January 28th

2013.

Marina Ottaway. “Democracy Promotion in the Middle East: Restoring Credibility”. Carnegie

Endowment for International Peace, Mass, May 2008. Web.

Pew research, Global attitudes Project. Global Public Opinion in the Bush Years (2001-2008)

America's Image; Muslims and Westerners; Global Economy; Rise of China, December 18,

2008.Web. January 26th

2013.

Videos:

Bush Defends Decision to Take Down Saddam. ABC news video, November 11th

2008.

mailto:[email protected]

xv

Bibliography:

Books:

Brian C. Schmidt, and Michael C. Williams. The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War:

Neoconservatives versus Realists. Security Studies, 2008. Web. March 7th

, 2013.

Katerina dalacoura. U.S foreign policy and democracy promotion in the Middle East:

Theoretical perspectives and policy recommendations, vol2 No3. Ortadoğu Etütleri , July

2010. Web. March 7th

, 2013.

Mathew Allan Hill. Democracy Promotion and conflict-based Reconstruction: the United

States and Democratic consolidation in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Ira. Democratization

studies, U.S.A, 2011. Web. March 7th

, 2013.

Michael Cox, and Doug Stokes, ed. U.S Foreign Policy. Oxford University Press, U.K, 2007.

Web. March 7th

, 2013.

Susan B. Epstein, Nina M. Serafino, and Francis T. Miko. Democracy Promotion:

Cornerstone of U.S. Foreign Policy? Congressional research service, December 26, 2007.

Web. March 7th

, 2013.

William T. Bedford Jr. The Effect of U.S. Intervention on Political Rights and civil studies.

Thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2011. Web. March 7th

, 2013.

Articles:

Annika E. Poppe.Whither to, Obama? U.S. “Democracy Promotion After the Cold War”.

Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, 2010. Web. March 7th

, 2013.

Christopher M. Blanchard, Alexis Arieff, et al . “Change in the Middle East: Implications for

U.S. Policy”. Congressional research service, March 7th, 2012. Web. March 7th

, 2013.

Flynt Leverett. “History of US Interest History Since End of WWII”. The Geopolitics and

Geo-economics of Global Energy, Spring 2007.Web. March 7th

, 2013.

James Meernik. “United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy”.

Journal of Peace Research, vol. 33, no. 4, 1996, pp. 391-402. Web. March 7th

, 2013.

xvi

Washington, DC, Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Transnational Threats: The

Emerging Strategic Lessons from the US Intervention in Iraq”. Center for Strategic and

International Studies, February 11, 2003. Web. March 7th

, 2013.

Democracy Promotion and U.S National Interests in the Middle East

Documents

Transcript of Democracy Promotion and U.S National Interests in the Middle East