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