Cross-Blog Iraq Debate: Pro-War Roundup

Editor's Note to Google / Yahoo Searchers: Welcome! If you've found this page because you're searching for weblogs about the Iraq conflict, you've come to the right place. Or at least, a right place. If you are new to the world of weblogs, then a double-welcome to you: you are about to discover one of the most rewarding information sources in existence today. We aren't professional journalists (well, most of us) --- but sometimes that's a good thing!

I am N.Z. Bear, and this is my humble weblog. The post you see below is from a grand experiment in which webloggers from the pro- and anti- sides came together for a structured debate to exchange ideas and argue their respective positions. I coordinated the pro-war side of the debate, and Stand Down: The Left-Right Blog Opposing an Invasion of Iraq coordinated the anti-war side. The debate had several parts:

The Call for Questions
Publication of the Questions
Publication of the Answers

If you just want to cut to the chase, I suggest going right to the answers, as that's where you'll find the actual arguments made by myself, and many, many other webloggers.

If you are looking for more up-to-the-minute news, I highly recommend The Command Post, a collaborative weblog being updated continuously, 24x7, with the latest breaking stories on the conflict.

And of course, I hope you'll check my own front page for my latest take on recent events, and browse the sidebar for my past "greatest hits". And if you don't find what you are looking for, feel free to drop me a line and I'll try to point you in the right direction.

Again, welcome!

-N.Z. Bear
March 27, 2003

---

Ok folks: it's been full while it lasted, but all good things must come to an end. Below you will find the final roundup of all pro-war responses to the Cross-Blog Iraq Debate.

Update: The Anti-War roundup is now available at Stand Down.

Where a response was reasonably brief in length, I included the full answer: for longer ones, I tried to exerpt a relevant summary passage. I encourage everyone to follow the links & review each blogger's full responses, of course.

At final count, thirty-seven bloggers chose to respond on the pro-war side: an outstanding turnout! Thanks to all who participated.

And now, your answers...

1. Attacking Iraq has been publicly called a "pre-emption" of a threat from Saddam Hussein's regime, whose sins include launching regional wars of aggression. Do you think there is a clear and reliable difference between pre-emptive and aggressive warfare, and if so, what is it?

Patio Pundit: "There isn't. In a world without WMD and terrorists "pre-emption" would be a bad idea. It still is, but it is preferable to the alternative -- annihilation. We gotta do what we gotta do. It sucks, but there you have it."

Right Wing News: "Yes, there is a difference between invading a nation that threatens the safety of your citizens and invading a nation in hopes of making material gains from the conquest. We make this sort of distinction all the time. Shooting a burglar who breaks into your house and menaces your family is good, shooting someone because you want to steal their car is bad..."

Blogmonger: "The dictionary defines pre-emption as: -Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent. Or: -Undertaken or initiated to deter or prevent an anticipated, usually unpleasant situation or occurrence. The policy of pre-emption seeks to avert aggression from nations and organizations who have no reservations against launching attacks against innocent civilians, or from using their military power specifically to grab land and resources. Examples of this include Iraq's campaigns against Iran and Kuwait, or Nazi conquests during World War II. In both these examples there was no threat to Iraq or the Nazis from the nations they subjugated. Both regimes simply desired to conquer and loot the countries they invaded, in an attempt to fuel their aggressive policies. This is the key difference. The United States does not seek to invade Iraq for the purposes of acquiring the spoils of war; it only seeks the protection of its citizens."

No Prerequisite: "There is most definitely a difference between an aggressive war and the type of pre-emptive war being suggested by the United States. An aggressive war, such as that carried out by Nazi Germany, is pursued with the objective of making gains, territorial or otherwise, without any sort of legitimate provocation by the country (or countries) being attacked..."

Heretical Ideas: "Most certainly. A war of aggression is one that is fought for the purposes of conquest and/or destruction. For example, the Nazi invasion of Poland was an aggressive war. Its only purpose was for Germany to conquer Poland. Serbia's invasion of Bosnia was an aggressive war. It's purpose was the creation of a Greater Serbia and the genocide of Bosnian Muslims. Pre-emptive warfare, on the other hand, is waged when there is a reasonable belief that another nation plans to wage an agressive war, either against the nation waging pre-emptive war or one of its allies. For example, the American invasion of North Africa and later Europe during World War II was pre-emptive because neither Germany nor Italy ever attacked the United States. But they had attacked American allies and it was reasonable to assume that they would attack the United States, since they had declared war against the United States..."

Robin Goodfellow: "Contrary to the beliefs of some "post modernist" thinkers, not all people are equal (to clarify, the difference is their histories), nor are all countries, nor are all actions. There has been a tendency in recent times to boil down actions into their simplest forms devoid of context and then attempt to compare them morally, as it were, on that basis. Context does matter, and it matters greatly. A gun in the hand of a murderer is a very much different threat than a gun in the hand of a police officer. Pre-emptive attack by a trusted state with a strong history of respect for civil rights and civilian safety is much different from aggressive invasion by a state with a history of brutality and oppression. The US has demonstrated time and time again that it has been willing to peacefully give up land that it has "conquered" or occupied back over to local rule without demanding "spoils of war" or anything of that sort..."

Red Letter Day: "I do. Aggressive warfare is affirmatively going out and conquering nations in order to add them to your empire or plunder their resources. Pre-emptive warfare consists of a limited attack against a country that represents a legitimate growing threat. To take two examples from World War II, Germany attacking Poland was a war of aggression. Poland represented no threat, present or future, to Germany. On the other hand, imagine the French and English attacked Germany in 1938 after growing alarmed by its militarism. That would be a preemptive war."

Derek James: "All warfare is aggressive. But if the question is asking whether there would be a difference between deposing a tyrant who has continued to develop WMD against the terms of cease-fire and the will of the international community, and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait...well yeah, there's an obvious difference. In the early 90's, Iraq invaded Kuwait, member of the U.N., a sovereign country, in order to conquer it and annex it. That was wrong. Military action against Iraq now would not necessarily be "pre-emptive". There are punitive elements as well. The justification is: You refuse to comply with cease-fire agreements from the end of a war you started, you continue to develop WMD against the will of the international community, and you commit atrocities against humanity...and guess what? The international community will take action to depose you."

John Tabin: "I’m not sure I accept what I take to be the implicit premise of the question-- that an “aggressive” war is by definition undesirable. If the dichotomy is simply aggressive vs. defensive, I don’t think that it’s correct to assume that defense is good, while offense is bad..."

Richard Bennett: " By whom has it been called a war of pre-emption other than those trying to weasel out of fighting it? Your passive construction is at best ambiguous. The reasons the US, the UK, Australia, 17 continental European democracies, and a half-dozen of Iraq's neighbors are preparing to remove Saddam Hussein from power have been best articulated in the seventeen UN Security Council Resolutions passed since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait ordering Iraq to disarm. As no other nation has been the subject of such a barrage of UN paperwork, we can reasonably conclude that Iraq has a unique status among nations, justifying special treatment. As to the threshold justifying war as enforcement of international edict vs. war as simple aggression (a good example of a contemporary aggressive war is France's incursion into Ivory Coast), it's hard to say exactly how many UN resolutions are required: perhaps five, or possibly ten, maybe fifteen in an extreme case, but seventeen seems like a nice, round number. Some hard-liners might even say a single UN Resolution ordering an aggressive nation to disarm should be sufficient, but such people are clearly idealists and not to be taken seriously."

WylieBlog: "Yes, there is a clear and reliable difference between acts of aggression and pre-emptive defensive actions. Aggressive actions are taken, almost without exception, by one nation or state against another with the intent of territorial expansion, either explicit or de facto, with an eye towards ongoing domination by the aggressors of the subject lands, their people and their natural resources. This is often done under the guise of "re-unification" or restoration of a supposed previous state of sovereignty i.e. Nazi Germany's claim to the Sudetenland and more recently Saddam Hussein's claim on Kuwait. Pre-emptive defensive actions, on the other hand, would be those taken by the threatened (either implicitly or explicitly) country in order to prevent or forestall an attack deemed imminent based on non-refutable intelligence i.e. the blockade of Cuba after the installation of Soviet ballistic missiles."

Live from Brussels: "This is a tricky question, since what constitutes aggression is very much in the eye of the beholder. Even Hitler claimed he was 'counterattacking' Poland in 1939, after all, and further claimed he was unjustly attacked by the allies. So whatever the motives of an attack are, it is always going to look like an aggression to someone. Tough luck...It is my belief that the motives for an American attack are currently justified. Naturally, Saddam will dissagree. But then again, he's a bloodthirsty dictator, so he can talk to the hand, because the head is not listening."

Pundit Tree: "There is a difference between pre-emptive war and a war of aggression. Saddam’s war against Kuwait was a war of aggression. His purpose was not to defend his population or liberate the Kuwaiti people. It was a war of expansion. We are about to fight a pre-emptive war against Iraq. Our purpose is to disarm a man who has a demonstrated appetite for weapons of mass destruction. He has shown he has no compunction against using these weapons. Although he does not share the fanatical beliefs of the terrorists, he has maintained ties with terrorists. What possible use would these terrorists be to Saddam except to serve as a delivery mechanism for some weapon of revenge? Our pre-emptive war is, therefore, a war of self defense. Wars of aggression and pre-emption differ not only in the motives of those who wage them, but in the final result upon the country against which it was waged. Kuwait was to be another source of income for Saddam. It was a country to be looted. After our war against Iraq, we will help the country rebuild and form a government that will seek to serve its people rather than exploit them..."

Dean's World: "This question is difficult to answer without bogging down in a pointless debate about whether or not all war is aggressive or if pre-emption is aggressive. In the spirit of assuming that all sides seek genuine understanding, I'll try to explain what I see as the difference, in this context, between "pre-emptive war" and "aggressive war." I take "war of aggression" to be one fought primarily for territorial gains or monetary profit or sheer bloodlust. If this is how we define "war of aggression," then violent action to take out a known and dangerous psychotic is not "war of aggression." We stand to gain little or nothing materially, except enhanced safety, from bringing down Saddam Hussein. When Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese, the United States' first massive military response was to fight Italian and German troops in Northern Africa. Was that pre-emptive? Yes. Was it done for revenge, or because of a desire to plunder the vast wealth of Africa, or for imperialist ambitions? No. It was not. Neither is war against Saddam."

Useful Fools: "Aggressive warfare is pursued to take property, people or land. Pre-emptive warfare is undertaken to prevent aggression by the target country. The US has one major goal in attacking Iraq: deterring attacks against itself or allies by Iraq or other nations through the use of weapons of mass destruction."

The Weigh In: "Any effective warfare should be focused and aggressive, I’ll say upfront. I believe there is a difference between wars launched for defensive purposes, and wars launched for imperial ones. A pre-emptive attack is usually undertaken when a nation sees such a choice as the least worst option, and can think of no other way to avoid larger, more catastrophic losses in the future (think of the 1967 Israel-Arab war, where Israel determined that an invasion was imminent, and attacked to prevent it). Contrast this with Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, which was called “Kuwait's rightful return to Iraqi sovereignty” by Baghdad. We know that thousands of Kuwaiti resisters were arrested or tortured before the U.S. came in. We are trying to liberate Iraq, not invade and occupy it. This serves the overall goal of winning the war on terrorism by removing a major state sponsor of it. I can’t think of a single war that the U.S. has been involved in where it annexed territory and systematically pillaged another nation’s resources. Can the same be said for Saddam Hussein?"

Giants and Dwarfs: "Yes, there is. An aggressive war is an unprovoked act of aggression of one nation or alliance against one or more other nations, with the aim of destroying those nations or conquering (parts of) their territory. The pre-emptive war that the US and its allies are seeking to wage against Iraq is neither unprovoked, nor intended to destroy Iraq, nor intended to conquer Iraq. Like the pre-emptive strike in 1981 by Israel, the actions by the US are designed to take out a threat before it is too late to do anything about it. Traditionally, the principle of pre-emptive action has been recognized as a valid principle of the ‘just war’. "

Cold Fury: "Sure do. The difference is in the intent and the objective. Aggressive war means war fought to aquire territory or resources for the purpose of enriching the aggressor nation in some definable way. Preemptive war means hitting them before they hit us. The antiwar folks seem more than willing to countenance another 9/11 before taking any action is acceptable. I am not."

Cranky Hermit: "As far as a set of objective criteria, which, say, the United Nations could use to evaluate each and every instance, I don’t think that is possible. The UN is populated by too many authoritarian regimes and non-functional democracies that are motivated by regional alliances and self-interest to objectively evaluate any action. Remember, Hitler explained his attack on Poland as a response to a Polish attack, an assertion that was supported by his then-allies. In addition, pre-emption is often best evaluated in a historical context. No rational person today could argue that it would have been unjustified for France or England to have initiated action against Germany before Hitler invaded Poland. Yet Nazi Germany may not have even met my criteria for justified pre-emption until it invaded Poland. Nevertheless, I believe that there are certain objective standards that can be applied to distinguish justified pre-emption from aggression..."

Daily Pundit: "No, not a clear and reliable difference, but I would suggest that a past history of threats to attack, and actual attacks, against the United States would be a good indicator."

Mellow-Drama: "The differences lie in the motive and the timing. Aggressive warfare is sending your military to battle over who gets what resources, be it land, oil, whatever. Pre-emptive striking is striking to defend oneself (whether in error or not) against a very clear threat. I don’t consider our strike into Iraq “pre-emptive” but rather a continuation of a long battle that has been going on for years. This is just the final phase (we hope) begun when Iraq invaded Kuwait oh-so-many years ago."

Glome: "In the old days, you could see an enemy's ships closing in on your shores. Scouts could see infantry moving towards your border. In those cases, the issue of pre-emptive attack versus aggression was brilliantly clear: pre-emptive action would have been an attack designed to surprise and push back an advancing force that clearly meant to attack you, and that clearly was an enemy. Aggression would have described the action of the advancing force. A clearly belligerent step towards an unprovoked attack...Since 9/11, we have come to know two things about our future encounters with terrorists: that we cannot prevent first strikes by terrorists on their terms, however well equipped our intelligence agencies are, and that a first strike could be utterly devastating; it could rock our world with heavy casualties, economic chaos, and international instability leading to larger areas of anarchy and war. Inasmuchas Iraq is hostile to the U.S., and has or is attempting to procure nukes, etc., and would presumably have few qualms supplying other terrorists with such (or using them itself), these concerns have come to trump any lukewarm respect for Iraqi sovereignty I entertained."

Little Green Footballs: "Bzzt. We’re starting off on a very disingenuous foot here, anti-war questioner. This may have been “publicly called” a pre-emption, but not by the US government—because it isn’t a pre-emption. A state of hostilities has existed between the United Nations (not just the United States) and Iraq for more than a decade, with no-fly zones enforced by military aircraft, sanctions, and other restrictive measures intended to force Iraq to comply with the disarmament agreement they signed. After September 11 it’s obvious that we cannot afford to ignore fascist states with weapons of mass destruction, so there is some new urgency about dealing with the threat of Iraq. But this is not pre-emption; it’s self-defense, necessitated by Iraq’s long history of aggression, double-dealing, and hunger for WMD. Please read Kenneth Pollack’s book The Threatening Storm."

Jeff Lawson (nowhere): "There is indeed a significant difference, in that "pre-emption" is a response to a potential threat, whereas "aggressive warfare" would refer more to matters of conquest. Put simply, pre-emption is a logical, acceptable approach to avoid becoming the victim of aggressive warfare. When we get in the car, we buckle up in order to protect ourselves should we be involved in an accident. We don't first wait for the accident to happen."

Incidental to the Question: " If we are to use the definitions presented in the question one, the answer is yes, there is a clear and reliable ( for want of better word) difference between a war of aggression and one of pre-emption. An offensive war of aggression such as the Gulf War invasion of Kuwait, the German invasion of Poland, or the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor all represent militarily unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations, for the sole purpose of territorial acquisition. Whereas ‘pre-emptive’ war represents the actions of a nation with a clear understanding that inaction will result in aggressive measures by an adversary. It is a war of proactive self defense. A war of aggression is one of offence and does not fall within the boundaries or definitions of a just war."

Dave Himrich: "Yes. Let’s define some terms, though. Pre-emptive warfare: attacking an enemy that poses a clear threat to the safety and security of the nation before the threat is realized. Aggressive warfare: warfare in pursuit of political goals other than defending the safety and security of the nation. So the straight answer to the question is: “One has the component of defending the nation from a threat, the other does not.” But I suppose that the implication of the question is that the impending war with Iraq is really aggressive warfare, despite the claims of the Administration that it’s pre-emptive self defense. There is probably no way for the general public to know with certainty, a priori, which is the truth. If one trusts the Administration (as I do) then one is prepared to take them at their word, especially since their word squares with years of history and the present facts as I understand them. For example, if the war was simply to get the oil flowing, the easiest way would be to play along with UN and lift the sanctions.
I can’t imagine that people really think we will seize the oil fields in Iraq and give them to ExxonMobil. That would be political suicide, which is something that elected governments actively avoid. Fascist dictators have no comparable brake on their aspirations."

Thought Mesh: "First, let me make a context objection in that I don't agree that our prospective invasion of Iraq is "pre-emption" at all. It is a direct response and continuation of the first Gulf War. That war ended with a cease-fire where by the Iraqi government agreed to specific terms. That government has honored none of those terms, rendering the cease-fire (not peace treaty!) null and void, returning the US and Iraq to a state of war. In such a state, an invasion of the enemy nation can hardly be considered "pre-emptive". However, I will answer the original question anyway. The difference between pre-emptive and agressive war depends more on the behaviour of the target and not the invader. Like many things in life, there is no bright line but just shades of "more" and "less"..."

The Lazy Pundit: "The difference is one of intent: is the goal conquest and possession of territories, or the imposition of benign political change, followed by withdrawal? Intent is in general difficult to prove; it may be impossible to prove altogether, other than in hindsight. All that can be done is to look to past precedents for guidance. Based on this, Iraqi actions against Iran and Kuwait were unquestionably cts of aggression, since the goal was to seize and permanently hold enemy territory for material gain. By contrast, it has been over a century since the United States waged a war of conquest..."

Andrew Ian Dodge: "In this case I believe there it is clearly a pre-emptive strike. There is more and more evidence that Saddam is helping Al Qaeda in an effort to attack the US. If it were not for no-fly zones it is clear that Saddam would have attacked a neighbor by now. He has a long history of expansionism. Since, he is unable to expand into Kuwait and Iraq he has chosen to do it by proxy. Saddam gambled that we would be distracted by 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden. He lost his gamble. I am sure that more evidence of terrorist training camps will be found in Iraq. Even BBC?s Newsnight program was able to find evidence of Al Qaeda in Iraq."

Your Word: "A preemptive strategy is one that allows a nation to defend itself against imminent war. Aggressive warfare is what Hitler did to the Polish. As a matter of policy, nearly every president since FDR has been accused of not using the bully pulpit to its full advantage. The Bush Doctrine is the presidential bully pulpit used to its greatest effect. In short, I believe the Bush Doctrine, more than anything else, is an attempt to rapidly realign all the resources of our nation to thwarting additional attacks against Americans or American interests..."

NewCrusader.com: "It's the difference between the police using force and criminals using force. One is to protect society, the other is to rob, rape, and ransom. This is the fundamental difference between pre-emption and aggression. Unfortunately, there are many who don't see the distinction. The faulty thinking goes like this: The use of force is bad. The police use force. Therefore the police are bad. Saddam Hussein is a criminal. Not allegorically, but literally a criminal. A brutal, repressive, homicidal, psychotic, bloodthirsty killer holding 24 million people hostage. We have a warrant for this dirt bag but the morally impaired anti-war crowd believes that the use of force is bad. The US is going to use force. Therefore the US is bad. If anything the position of anti-war is a stand for anarchy and by extension encourages a world where aggressive warfare is the rule..."

PontifExMachina: "No, there isn't. Any time you're engaging in something called war, you tend to throw clear and reliable anythings out the window. But a good guide is this: do you plan to subjugate the lands and people in the country you are invading? When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Kuwaitis and their natural resources were used to serve the Iraqi regime. When we invaded Germany, we poured billions into reconstruction efforts. If you can't tell the difference, then I can't help you."

N.Z. Bear: "War to depose Saddam Hussein would be a pre-emptive action to prevent his future misdeeds. But it would also be a simple continuation of the war which he initiated over a decade ago. Hussein invaded his neighbor, and was rightfully repelled by force by a coalition led by the United States. He signed a cease-fire agreement meant to end that conflict, and since, has consistently failed to fulfill his obligations under that agreement. It would be nice if the United Nations would formally recognize that he has done so and clearly authorize further military action, but it looks like that's not going to happen. But the United States has already stuck its neck out in this conflict: we are the ones who bore the burden of the first war, and it's consequences --- now, we've got Iraq pissed at us, as with much of the Arab world. So, given that we are likely to pay the price for Hussein's violations of the cease-fire, I don't feel any obligation to wait for further U.N. blessing..."

The Baseball Crank: "Clear and reliable, yes; easy to summarize in a pithy slogan that can be chanted in the streets, no. Ultimately, much of the difference depends on whether or not you believe the attacking party’s argument. Which is part of the problem: people keep demanding that we reduce the rules of international law to maxims that even dope-addled peaceniks can understand, and – more importantly – that can be evaluated at face value by “the international community” without any attempt to figure out who is right and who is wrong, or to distinguish between democratic regimes that are bound domestically by the rule of law and respect for basic human rights, and those that rule their own people unilaterally and by force. The real distinction requires actually making sense of the facts of individual situations..."

Counterpoint: "All war is aggressive. What matters is the underlying logic for the war. Our war against Saddam's regime, if and when it happens, is based on the idea that Saddam is a clear and present danger to the stability of the Middle East. Even in his weakened state, he posseses the means and the will to disrupt the status quo. His armed forces are still capable of conquering any of the Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, et al) and Jordan, able to inflict massive damage on Syria and Iran, and able to contribute significantly to a combined attack on Israel. The logic for Saddam's wars (against Iran from 1980-88, and against Kuwait in 1990-91) has been purely for material gain (oil reserves in Kuwait and Iran's Khuzestan region) and territorial conquest. The same logic governed the Japanese in their conquest of the Pacific, for example. Moreover, unlike East Asia, there are no countervailing regional powers to keep Saddam in check, which means that it falls to us to keep him in check."

Cut on the Bias: "Yes, there is a clear difference. Aggressive warfare is an unprovoked attack on whomever – your own people, a group in another country, or the entire country itself. Hitler’s movement into various European countries, and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, are examples. A pre-emption is when there is credible evidence that the country subject to the pre-emptive attack has both capability and intent to do harm to either the country engaging in the pre-emption or that country’s citizens or possessions in other parts of the world. Motive is also important - aggressive warfare is for the purpose of imposing the will of the aggressor on the attacked nation or peoples with no consideration for the ones attacked. A pre-emptive attack should include efforts to minimize damage to the civilians of the attacked nation, and when possible improving the conditions of those people following the removal of the threat that drew the attack."

2. What do you feel are the prospects that an invasion of Iraq will succeed in a) maintaining it as a stable entity and b) in turning it into a democracy? Are there any precedents in the past 50 years that influence your answer?

Patio Pundit: "After Saddam is toppled the people of Iraq (or the countries that succeed it) will live lives that are far, far better than the lives they live now -- probablilty 85%. There may well be a Trukish-style democracy -- probability 40%. The German and Japanese precedents come to mind. That said, democracy is not required for the Iraqi operation to be termed a success. As long as the WMD's are removed and Iraq no longer poses a threat we have succeeded. Everything else is gravy."

Right Wing News: "A) I think it will be difficult, yet possible for Iraq to become a stable Democracy. Democracies do not form overnight, they take a long time to gel (by long, I mean decades) and there are all sorts of hiccups along the way. Even the US experienced horrible growing pains (think of the Civil War) long after our nation became a Republic. B) There have been a myriad of new Democracies that have formed over the last fifty years. Look to Eastern Europe for more of them than you can shake a stick at. But, I suspect that the anti-war folks are hinting that, "those people" aren't capable of forming Democracies -- as if their are some people who are incapable of forming free societies. Personally, I don't believe that for a second..."

Blogmonger: "The prospect of rebuilding Iraq and maintaining a stable democracy will be a difficult one. If the United States remains committed to the task there is a strong possibility of success. Iraq has a well educated middle class, and it still retains significant public infrastructure. Some precedents I would point to are the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after World War II, and the bourgeoning democracies in Eastern Europe. These examples show that societies with significant cultural differences from the West can embrace the ideals of Western Democracy. The task will be hard, but as long as we remain committed the prospects for democracy in Iraq are high."

No Prerequisite: "This question depends in part on the definition of "stable entity." Is the killing of political opponents upon the assumption of power a characteristic of a stable country? For many, the peaceful passage of power is one of the hallmarks of a stable country, one which disqualifies the current Iraqi government. Is a country punished by sanctions, dependant upon UN aid, and unable or unwilling to comply with international obligations stable? Is a nation which endures horrific treatment and human rights violations while their rulers live in splendor stable, or desirable? I'm not convinced Iraq is stable now..."

Heretical Ideas: "I think the prospects are pretty good, because the Bush Administration seems to be committed to rebuidling Iraq along the lines of the post-World War II occupation of Germany and Japan. The Administration has said on several occasions that it wishes to rebuild Iraq as a democracy. In its history, the United States has attempted to rebuild democracy after toppling enemy governments three times. The aforementioned Germany and Japan, and Afghanistan. In terms of Germany and Japan, our efforts were clearly successful, and both nations are stable, functioning democracies. Presuming that we bring that experience to bear on Iraq, I see no reason why democracy shouldn't flourish there, as well, particularly if Iraqi defectors and exiles return home with experience of living in a democratic nation."

Robin Goodfellow: "I think the prospects for both are decent. Stability is, I think, rather overrated, as is "peace". For decades the Soviet Union was stable and all the while it was murdering millions. I would much prefer sanity (of governments and societies) and safety of citizenry than stability of any particular regime. Democracy is a tougher problem. In my opinion "democracy" (like "peace" and "stability") has been used far too much as a term which is taken to be implicitly good. Democracy has shown that it is not universally good (as when Hitler was democratically given broad dictatorial powers). I prefer broad personal liberty and government accountability (which are the foundations of healthy democracy). I believe both can be advanced very substantially in Iraq and I believe both have very good chances of taking hold on a long term basis. Historically there are a great many examples to draw from which give hope that Iraq can become a modern, free country. I think Japan and India (both of which were not democracies until the second half of the 20th century) are good examples of how it can be made to work (if not necessarily without difficulties along the way)."

Red Letter Day: "Whether Iraq remains a unitary state is really up to the United States. If, after the invasion is complete, we make it clear that Iraq will stay together, then it will. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq is currently fairly unitary; with the special exception of the Kurds, there are not dozens of regional warlords that will have to be bought off after invasion. Thus, keeping Iraq together will be an administrative, not a military task, and one which will depend on the skill of the American administrators. As for turning Iraq into a democracy, that is much longer-term project. I would suspect that a program similar to Afghanistans will be put into place. An interim government, followed by a provision election a year or so later, followed by a constitution another year down the road, and then free elections. US troops will be in the country the whole time. The key to whether democracy will work is whether stability can be established, and really, that is up to the United States. Wth so much riding on this, I think we will do a good job. Past precedents include Japan and Germany after WWII, and more recently Bosnia. Bosnia's democracy is fragile, but it is real."

Derek James: "I think the both propositions will be extremely difficult. I also think they are extremely important and worth trying to achieve. I also think it would be difficult to imagine a regime that could be much worse than Saddam Hussein's. Even a fractured mess would be better than a highly-organized, brutal and oppressive despot. As to our track record, Japan, Germany, and South Korea are all strong examples of creating and fostering democracy where none existed before (though they all fall just out of the 50-year range of the question). Admittedly, we haven't had a great track record since then, but there are few regimes that we've purposefully, militarily overthrown with the purpose of installing a democracy, and never in the past 50 years have we had the support of the international community in doing so. The jury's still out on Afghanistan. It's too early to tell how that will pan out. But I don't think there's anybody who could seriously argue that the continued rule of the Taliban would be preferrable to the fledgling government they have now."

John Tabin: "Maintaining Iraq as a “stable entity” is not an especially important goal to me. Certainly, destruction of the Ba’athist regime (a regime that maintains the current “stability”) is part of my hopes as a war aim. Will the borders of a free Iraq match the borders of the current Iraq? Only if this is important enough to the Iraqi people; if the country is to be divided, obviously a peaceful and democratic split (as happened in the former Czechoslovakia) is preferable, and Kurdish irredentism in Turkey in the event of Kurdish independence is something to worry about..."

Richard Bennett: "Is Iraq a "stable entity" today? Saddam Hussein rose to power twenty years ago through the device of publicly executing 50 members of his party to signify his arrival. As one of the hallmarks of stability is the orderly transfer of power, this indicates Iraq is lacking in this department. While twenty years is a rather long time for a single genocidal tyrant to remain in power (neither Hitler nor Idi Amin lasted nearly that long), Iraq in its present configuration is no more stable than Saddam Hussein is personally, and that's not much. Sixty percent of Iraqis depend on the government for food, and most of that is purchased through the UN Oil-for-Food program; given that Iraq's relations with the UN are somewhat strained at the moment, this doesn't demonstrate much in the way of stability either. So your premise is faulty..."

WylieBlog: "I believe the prospects of maintaining a liberated Iraq as a stable entity are in the probability range of 50-75% chance of success. A functioning democracy would be the ultimate goal, perhaps after a period of autocratic rule by a government established in partnership with Iraqi expatriates who share that vision for their country, with help from America and other allied governments. The most obvious precedent would be the post WWII establishment of operational democracies in West Germany and Japan. Perhaps that's why the historic window was limited to 50 years. Panama might be another instructive example."

Live from Brussels: "The obvious answers would be uncertain, very good and Japan and Germany. But we might as well add Italy to that list, and Austria. Oh, and then there's Korea (the south, at least), and Afghanistan, so far. From the top of my head, I don't know any other countries the U.S. has invaded and fully occupied since the Vietnam war. Invaded, yes, but not a full-blown military occupation lasting for years. Hmm, Kosovo, perhaps, now that I think of it. Didn't they have elections there recently? As to the 'stable entity', well, perhaps not. But three 'stable entities', all under democratic governance? Quite possible: Kurds, Shia's and Shi'ites, each in their own mini-state. Perhaps even in a kind of federation, if they can stop hating each other long enough."

Pundit Tree: "The prospects are good. Certainly any efforts we make on behalf of the Iraqis will be better than life under the current dictator. As for precedents there is Japan, Germany, and now Afghanistan. These three countries have all benefited from having been conquered by the United States. In fact, I wonder if some struggling backwater country might catch on to this and attack us for this very purpose. Perhaps we should expect a sneak attack from France. But seriously, the benefit of bringing civilization to Iraq will be enjoyed not just be the Iraqis, but will serve to improve the stability of the entire region, and then the entire world."

Dean's World: "Given that, under British and American pre-emptive action, the denizens of northern Iraq have managed to found a stable liberal democratic government, and given the relatively secular, well-educated, and modernist world that most Iraqis inhabit, I would say our chances are excellent. This will not be easy, but the assistance of our allies and (most likely) the UN should make this attainable. There can be no guarantees of course. But it already has been attained in northern Iraq, and the people there have made it clear that they seek a unified and democratic Iraq rather than an independent state. In other areas, Kosovo has shown steady progress after American pre-emptive action. Afghanistan still has problems but is coming along nicely and is in better shape today than it has been in generations. Furthermore, for all the debate over Nicraragua, it long ago became a stable democracy which enjoys free speech and free press, and the Sandinistas only allowed this after considerable pre-emptive action by the Americans. Of course, by limiting us to 50 years, you are not allowing us to use some of the best examples: South Korea, Germany and Japan. Yet these examples also show us what is possible."

Useful Fools: "The question is irrelevant. The purpose is to pre-empt attacks against the US. Saving Iraq from itself is only icing on the cake. But to answer the question, only a prolonged occupation with significant forced cultural shifts (indoctrination) is likely to create democracy in Iraq. The best precedent is post-WWII Japan, which was indoctrinated away from a warlike mentality."

The Weigh In: "Stability is overrated. Christ, the Khmer Rouge stabilized Cambodia for a few years, through a program of ruthless genocide. How can anyone defend the current “stability” of Saddam Hussein’s regime to the thousands of political prisoners currently trapped in his gulags? There is great potential for the U.S. to assist in rebuilding Iraq into a workable democracy, along the lines of Germany or Japan (or even South Korea) after World War II. Okay, that’s slightly more than 50 years ago. (Anyone else think this was a loaded question?)..."

Giants and Dwarfs: "How important is it that Iraq stays a “stable entity”? There are those, in the realpolitik school who think that Iraq ought to serve as a counter poise to powerful states in the region, by which they mean Iran. Those theorists are probably right, and therefore powerful forces like the US and Turkey (which seeks to prevent a Kurdish state) will ensure that the territorial integrity of Iraq will be guaranteed. Either way, Iraq now is only stable because it is ruled by a ruthless dictator. Its stability is not natural. Kurds in the North are de facto independent, and the Shi’ites of the South hate Saddam and his Sunni clan even more than the rest of the country. If Iraq is liberated from Saddam, there is room to create a federal state on the territory of Iraq, with more autonomy for the Kurds and the Shi’ites, Iraq will then be a more stable entity than now. As for democracy: I disagree with those on the pro-war front who think Iraq can magically be turned into a healthy democracy overnight. Liberty is more important than freedom and it takes time for liberal democracy to take root. Anyone who thinks that merely holding elections means you’re a liberal democracy should read Tocqueville’s Democracy in America and think again. Nonetheless, the only way to start the necessary process towards liberal democracy in the Middle East is to begin somewhere. Iraq is as good a first step as any. “Precedents” in politics are of limited value. Politics is all about prudence – and that means paying attention to the specific circumstances of each case. There are no hard rules in international politics, only imperfect analogies."

Cold Fury: "I don't really know, and neither does anyone else. But it is certainly worth trying, and seems to me to be the only real path to ultimately defeating terrorism. As for examples, well, it all seems to have worked pretty well with Germany and Japan, don't you think?"

Cranky Hermit: "a) Stability, in and of itself, is not a legitimate goal of foreign policy. It is the quest for stability that led us to support oppressive authoritarian regimes in the Middle East who have fostered hatred against Israel and the United States to divert attention from their own failed governments and have covertly aided terrorists intent on destroying Western civilization. However, the government that emerges in Iraq, though maybe not as stable as to have the same ruler for decades, will certainly permit more political, economic, and social freedom for its people and be less of a threat to the rest of the world. b) The chances of turning Iraq into a democracy are even greater than were the chances of doing the same in Japan after WWII. Although Iraq does not have a tradition of democracy, neither did pre-bellum Japan. Or Germany, for that matter. Before the Ba’athist coup that led to Saddam’s takeover, Iraq had a relatively vibrant economy and emerging middle class, despite the absence of a functional democracy. This, combined with assistance and commitment from Western democracies and exiled leaders, leads me to conclude that the chances of democracy emerging in Iraq are quite good. The lack of recent examples is less a reflection of the difficulty of the endeavor than of strategic goals that did not stress spreading democracy but, rather, countering the spread of Communism and/or fostering and enforcing stability."

Daily Pundit: "I think there will be few threats to Iraqi stability as long as the US maintains an occupation of Iraq. I also think there will be far fewer problems in establishing a democracy that most people expect. Precedents would be the obvious ones - postwar Japan and Germany. The common antiwar reply to this is that Iraq and its civil institutions have been so degraded by generations of tyranny - and/or that Iraqis are so savage and ignorant - that democratic institutions will take an extraordinary length of time to establish. But this is silly, and easy to disprove. Voting, for instance, is at the heart of the democratic process. Do the antiwar folks believe that Iraqis will be unable to comprehend casting a ballot? They already did, only a few months ago. Of course it was an open ballot, and so the citizens were unable to make a free choice, yet the principle should still be obvious enough, I'd think. The USSR ran sham elections for nearly seven decades, and yet the Russian people took to a true democratic ballot in extremely short order."

Mellow-Drama: "The prospects are great, because many Americans only support this invasion if something is done to keep it from happening again. That means turning Iraq into a stable, democratic state. I point, like everyone else, to Germany and Japan. It’s going to take that kind of financial and political commitment. Anything short will fall short of our goals and make for an unstable Iraq and to me is unacceptable."
Glome: "I believe the prospects are good (maybe 70%) that democracy can be maintained for a long enough period of time for it to be self-sufficient. This is only going to be possible if we stay in control for a long period of time, probably close to a decade. This would be necessary to get the people used to a stable way of life, and to allow young people to grow up in a stable environment, causing them to eventually value collective stability and economic opportunity over ethnic or religious tribalism and infighting. More importantly though, I believe that even if democracy fails in Iraq, we will be in a much better strategic position vis-à-vis hostile terrorist forces such as Al-Qaeda and Hizbullah than before. We will be able to restrict the movement of arms between Israel and Iran, etc."

Little Green Footballs: "I’m less concerned with the future of Iraq than I am with the future of my country, and the primary purpose of any operation in Iraq is to ensure the safety of Americans, not to install a democracy. Having said that, there are people in Iraq who believe democracy is possible after Saddam is thrown out, and are begging for the chance."

Jeff Lawson (nowhere): "I'll admit to not being as optimistic as some. However, the current Iraqi regime is far from being a stable, democratic entity as is. I don't think an American invasion and occupation will make matters worse for the Iraqi people in the long run; that is, if our current planning is even remotely successful, it will still be a vast improvement on the present situation. The precedent established by the reconstruction of Japan following World War II gives me reason to be more optimistic than not, as it's an indication that it can be done, but Iraq is not Japan. In the end, I think this is the one question none of us can answer with any reliability."

Incidental to the Question: "If we are to assume this war with Iraq is one of self-defense, whether pro-active or reactive, then the issue of maintaining a stable Iraq is secondary. However, the Iraq people are well educated and eager to be freed from the tyranny of Hussein. The prospects are good that Iraq will maintain a semblance of civility and democracy in the Middle East. There are, of course, examples of regime change and stability in the world over the past 50-to 60 years. The two obvious examples are Germany and Japan following the fall and occupation of these Axis powers after WWII. Stable regime change and democracy need not be the established only after a hot war, but other examples exist throughout Eastern Europe. After the Cold War ended, with a victory by the West, the regimes in these nations changed and stability, while tenuous at times, continues to flourish. Too, the Latin American countries, especially in Central America, long proxies in the Cold War, have become much more stable over the past 20 years, not through occupation, but through trade. As the Bush regime continues to expand trade through out Central America, stability will continue to strength these fledgling democracies. Hence, the most important aspect of the long-term stability of the new Iraq regime will be not through occupation, but through trade. It may appear imperialistic, but if the United States reestablishes trading ties with the Iraqis, then prosperity, and democracy will follow an continue to strengthen."

Dave Himrich: "Post-war Iraq could be a mess of tribal contention, or it could turn into a stable democratic regime. There’s no reliable way to know in advance which it will be. We can observe that the long-term trend is for more democracies on the planet. People used to suppose that Asians weren’t compatible with democratic governments, but obviously they are. In the wake of the collapse of communist governments in eastern Europe, people were not sure if there would be stable governments in places like Poland and Romania. That entire region seems to have done much better than many were expecting. So democracy can take root under difficult circumstances, no question.
But besides all that, we need to kill Saddam Hussein to help ensure the safety of our population and the people of Iraq. We can worry about what happens after, after."

Thought Mesh: "I think that prospects for creating a stable entity or entities in the territory of Iraq are quite high, if for no other reason than making an example of a nation can have a salutory effect on it and its neighbors. It's not clear, however, that stability is a good thing. The stability of the North Korean regime hasn't been good for anyone except a tiny clique of rulers. Millions have died there and elsewhere on the alter of stability. I am less optimistic about the prospects of a democracy. However, as I have argued, I think that democracy of itself is overrated. What to me is far more important is rule of law and a self ordered society (I really need to do an entire post on what I mean by that). Such a society can then use some form of democracy to preserve itself. But democracy without the infrastructure of habit is fragile and frequently worse in the long term than a authortarian (because it can poison the well)... "

The Lazy Pundit: "Precedents within the time window specified are few, largely because that period was taken up by the Cold War. During that conflict, American foreign policy was focused (rightly or wrongly) on containing the Soviet Union and maintaining the stability of our strategic allies, rather than on human rights and democratic reforms. Nonetheless, there has been promising liberalization and democratization the former Eastern Bloc countries, and the European nations that were once Soviet "republics" (with the exception of Belarus). Also, South Korea and Taiwan, both within the American sphere of influence, have become more open and democratic during this period. Finally, South America, which was dominated by military dictatorships and totalitarian socialist regimes through the 1970s, is now almost wholly democratic; Mark Steyn has argued that this process began when the Galtieri regime in Argentina was discredited and overthrown in the aftermath of the Falkland Islands War. The fact that these changes took place without American occupation (and in some cases with no American military presence at all) should bode well for the potential for reform in any country liberated from an oppressive regime..."

Andrew Ian Dodge: "This will be down to the participating Iraqis. If all the parties wish to have a democratic post-war Iraq then they shall. If not, then there will be problems with the country in the short term. There are plans afloat from the Kurds and others to turn Iraq into a federal republic. I think this will probably be the best solution to the ethnic disparity in Iraq. It will hopefully reduce tension between the tribes that Saddam has suppressed and the one that Saddam is the leader of."

Your Word: "Technically, I cannot use the examples of Germany and Japan where regime change has had its greatest effect because of the 50 year horizon mandated by the question. Barring those examples, I would concede that because the Truman Doctrine (and the containment policies that resulted) was the primary motivator for American action around the world, we don't have good examples in the past 50 years for predicting the outcome of regime change. I believe that the current effort by the Bush Administration goes far beyond containing the issue or simply achieving stability in the region. We simply cannot turn a blind eye to what is not only a strategic region for America but also an ever increasingly source of global conflict and oppression. "

NewCrusader.com: "The only sure way to get rid of Saddam Hussein is for U.S. Forces to go in and remove him. The people of Iraq deserve their freedom and the Bush administration is committed to giving it to them. This is the central question of the war. How can their freedom secured and the threat of Saddam's regime alleviated? The invasion of Iraq will be successful, and be able to create a free pluralist country where once there was brutal repression. Japan, France, Germany, the Soviet Union, and Soviet Block countries are all countries which benefited from American liberation. Imperial Japan appeared to be a far more difficult country to turn into a democracy. The whole populace was indoctrinated into the national ideology and all were obedient and willing to sacrifice themselves for their emperor whom they worshiped as a god. Something in Iraq that only exists in Saddam's dreams. "

PontifExMachina: "That's not the point of an invasion. The point is to remove a threat in the region and curtail a developing threat internationally. The idea of bringing peace and stability (a) depends on what we do afterwards; the idea of democracy rests in the hearts of the Iraqi people."

N.Z. Bear: "I don't know whether a U.S. invasion / occupation of Iraq will succeed in maintaining it as a stable entity. But I challenge the assumption that Iraq being a stable entity is by definition a good thing. The Kurds in the north would almost certainly prefer to have their own homeland (although they are being browbeaten into accepting less). The Shia in the south might well prefer to be part of Iran...As for the prospects for democracy, that's easy: I absolutely believe democracy can succeed there. As for examples, look to the north and see the society the Kurds have established once Saddam's boot was removed from their throat. Or, look to the east, and see the vast progress being made in Afghanistan."

The Baseball Crank: "Hmm, “past 50 years” seems designed to take Japan and Germany out of the picture, no? I think the most useful lessons will be those of Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, the Philippines, and Nicaragua, with the former Soviet and South-Eastern European states – longest under tyranny and with the least tradition of self-rule – as the best models. The record in each of those places is mixed – but in all but a few cases, obviously better for our own interests than the aggressive despotism that preceded it. Democracy? It’s worth trying, as long as we’re not expecting it to look like New Hampshire overnight. The upside of establishing a state like Poland or Russia or Albania in Iraq would be huge, and an American presence in the country ought to help in that project. But the odds on success . . . well, the jury’s still out on democracy in Russia, too, isn’t it? I’d at least say there’s a very substantial chance of failure..."

Counterpoint: "The prospects are fairly good that Iraq will remain a stable entity. The main threats to its integrity come from the Kurds in Northern Iraq and the Shi'a Muslims (who make up the majority of the population in Iraq). Neither group is interested in Iraq falling apart--the Kurds have come to an acceptance that they will not be granted independence after a war, and the Shi'a have never seriously agitated for a separate state...The odds for a democracy aren't as good, sad to say. It's wildly unrealistic to expect an outbreak of Jeffersonian democracy to suddenly take place where there has never been a democratic tradition. The prospects for democracy are entirely dependent on how long our stay in Iraq, and what we do in order to prop up the regime. The more we do, the better the chances for a liberal democracy (along the style of Turkey) become. It's that simple..."

Cut on the Bias: " I think there are good prospects for stability in the long term, given the fact that the population is educated and, I think, capable of understanding the advantages of a society where the ri