by Adam Williams
In justifying the War in Iraq, it has been continually maintained by the United States that violent regime change in Iraq to install a democracy will not only produce a peaceful, democratic Iraq, but also provide an “inspiring example” for other such rouge nations. A clear example of this rhetoric turned to policy can be found in an executive memorandum by the Heritage Foundation’s James A. Phillips, in which he says the post-Saddam goal for the United States in Iraq is that of “building a stable, democratic, pro-American Iraqi government.” These claims are based on the democratic peace argument, which maintains that democracies do not go to war with one another. Arguments such as this, which propose security through homogeneity, though initially compelling and appearing to be inductively justified, when analyzed are categorically dubious. Moreover, if the US truly waged war on Iraq -- a substantial political and financial investment -- on the grounds that installing a democracy would be in its best interests as well as a move towards a greater peace, it did so either foolishly or to serve other interests. As I will show -- and I expect top-level officials already know -- arguments proposing security through homogeneity (STH) are fatally flawed except as a means to rhetorically justify further systemic hegemony or promote other interests....
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan05/Williams0117.htm
