1. WAR ON IRAQ IN THE LIGHT OF DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY
Ece DINCASLAN
Izmir University of Economics
ABSTRACT
The democratic peace is one of the best explanatory theories. The roots of this theory go back
to Philosopher Immanuel Kant in his Perpetual Peace, 1795. The foreign policy of the United
States, the War on Terror, and the War in Iraq is predicated on the democratic peace. Bush
administration, tried hold and help Washington in order to achieve a peaceful, stable, and
prosperous Muslim world as, following Iraq's example, democratize.
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and Saddam‟s use of chemical weapons were started and
inducing the war in Iraq. The United States justify itself by enhancing global human security
and decreasing internal political violence.
1. Introduction
At a first glance, Iraq War and occupation which is so called by United States and also
United Kingdom „Operation Iraqi Freedom, happened on March 20, 2003. It was composed of
a US-led coalition of nearly forty- nine 49 countries. War on Iraq is not an attack on the
United States to a free and civilized society, "the defence, was adopted under the umbrella
of the Euro-Atlantic. Wars not search the alliance. They will continue to struggle the most
authoritative, one-sided in the mouths of 2002 the new National Security Strategy of the
United States (National Security Strategy of the United States), the transmission power
of "fighting terrorism "to pursue the strategy to use and will feature the absolute sovereignty
of authorized. Thus democratic peace analysis has conclusions and predictions that go far
from other international relations theories of conflict. Democratic peace systems theory guess
that if two such states are democratic, they will not or are very unlikely to go to war with one
another during the time they remain democracies. France-Britain, France-Germany, and
Germany-Russia are the certain examples. However, the Iraq War or so called Operation Iraqi
Freedom can be seen as scientific point of view is questionable. The theory holds and will
help US to achieve a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Muslim world as, over time, Iraq's
neighbours, following Iraq's example, in order to democratize. The United States' real causes
or aims for attacking Iraq may have been really hard to examine, but regime change or the

2. replacement of Saddam Hussein's governance way with a democracy was central to US's
rhetoric by the time it began bombing Baghdad. Commonly, Iraq war is closely linked with
power and mostly oil or energy politics, also Middle East is a great area which served huge
opportunities rather than the potential Western threats. US governance needs to take
preventive assumptions in the cases of strategy, military and economy because US believe
September 11 deteriorated American democratic life style. In addition, President Bush is
declared that: „Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists‟, many countries are
concerned about US hegemony in general and administration of the war on terrorism in
particular. Thus, Operation Iraqi Freedom, related with the struggle against the nuclear
proliferation weapons of mass destruction and the try to establish the democratic political
culture and enhance human rights‟ status. They have become the central elements determining
the dynamics of the US foreign policy in the Iraq. Kant's theory of democratic peace can be
achieved in an environment of peace for the policies followed are to begin. In the system of
democratic states which would create the basis for a peaceful international basis, the most
important recent formulations are the claims that democratic states are more peaceful than
nondemocratic states. So that, democracies are more peaceful with respect to one another than
other states are. New strategy of deterrence, multilateral cooperation
and strategic partnership ratherthan as pre-making policies, emphasizing the new strategy will
follow the policies revealed. The identity of terrorism, describing the geography and the
geography of terrorism hosts declared the U.S. to act alone, after Afghanistan, "Operation
Iraqi Freedom" code known as the heart of the Middle East, Iraq, next to taking a
strategic ally, the United Kingdom, „Without UN Security Council resolution 20 March 2003‟
started to attack.
2. Transparency Issue
If the fundamental transparency issue concerned that US usually shows it as a proof in the
sense of human rights abuses; transparency in states is defined as “legal, political and
institutional structures that make information about the internal characteristics of a
government and society available to actors both inside and outside of the domestic political
system.”1 Because it allows informed action on the part of both citizens and other institutions
of government, transparency is fundamental to democratic in practice. Most analyses of
1
Bernard Finel and Kristin Lord, “The Surprising Logic of Transparency,” International tudies Quarterly 43, no. 2 (June
1999): 315–39. See 316.

3. transparency use very general measures to track the degree of transparency in a government
overall.2
3. Opponents and Proponents of Iraq War
Because of this war, thousands of Iraqis and US soldiers have died. Many opponents argue
that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, thus Bush administration only wanted Iraq‟s oil
and it‟s an excuse for the intervention. On the other hand, after 11 September, US declared
Saddam as an international law violator and killed many civilians. This occupation making
the US safer from terrorism in a post 11 September, world all justify the war in Iraq.
Moreover, proponents support the liberalization process of Iraq while showing human rights
abuses as a proof. Iraq War is an important subject matter for the political Democratic Peace
Theory as indicated the below, and democratic peace theory is often disputed since, even if
the theory is accepted, it does not imply that the „peace‟ has the key characteristics of a
„democracy‟ among countries. Some critics argue that it would be more accurately labelled as
the „inter-democracy nonaggression hypothesis.‟3
Even in highly sensitive policy arenas, the United States has procedures such as the
Freedom of Information Act which is guarantee public access to information expected to be
relevant to the public interest. The situation for contractors in Iraq is quite different. Not all of
this is a matter of restriction. In many areas, the government simply does not or whether did
not collect data on contractors, so information about which Program Management Systems
Committee (National Defence Industrial Association) (PMSC) personnel are deployed, where,
and in what ways is or was de facto not available. Until quite recently, neither did the
government collect information about the overall number of contract employees, the number
of casualties, or how much it spends on contracts.4 That information is now collected, though
it is not as available as information about troops.5 For instance, when journalists sought access
to information about Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, and Root‟s work to repair oil
fields in Iraq, significant portions of a Pentagon audit sent to the international monitoring
board were blacked out. The firm claimed that it was permissible to black out not only
2
See for instance, Freedom House, available athttp://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16, or Transparency
International, available at research/surveysindices/cpi/2007.
3
Daniele Archibugi, The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, 2008
4
Government Accountability Office (GAO), report to Congress, “Rebuilding Iraq: Actions Needed to Improve Use of Private
Security Providers,” (GAO-05-737), July 2005.
5
The Department of Defense is now required to keep regular census numbers of contract employees in Iraq but that
information is not publicized. See Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI), no. 3020.41,“Contractor Personnel Authorized
to Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces,” 3 October 2005, Section 4.5. and 6.2.6.

4. proprietary information but also statements “that we believe are factually incorrect or
misleading and could be used by a competitor to damage KBR‟s ability to win and negotiate
new work.”6 Even when they are not abused, proprietary limits on information can reduce the
transparency of government policy. The government, in concert with PMSCs, has
successfully restricted the release of a wide variety of information.7
4. Democratic Culture and Society
There is an emerging question to understand that: „How do people will examine this
nonviolence, peaceful nature of democracy issues?‟ Democracy can be the answer of it, but
sometimes there can be challenging or hard decisions to ignore this situation. There are two
other alternatives which explain the democracy issues. One is that with democratic institutions
comes a democratic culture of bargaining, compromise, and indulgence. And two, there is a
civil society of independent and interlinked institutions and groups that commonly composed
of churches, businesses, schools, and social, political, and recess groups which not only bond
likes chain with democratic society together, but also makes pressure on interests so that the
environment of a conflictual related things are not high, and they decrease the heavy burden
are isolated. Such a democratic culture and society also encompasses democratic nations,
enfolding them in a dynamic democratic field of cross national governmental and
nongovernmental organizations, multinational businesses, trade, cultural and educational
exchanges, which are similarly bond the nations together and cross pressure interest that
might favour violence. Moreover, the basic norm of negotiating and tolerating differences is
shared among democracies, which is one reason democracies cannot well negotiate with
dictatorship, to whom it is only war by other means.
5. The Cost of Democratic Peace Theory and Iraq War
The democratic peace theory, and US which show as a confirmation, sometimes it does not
exactly tell or show the use of force to Iraq into a democracy. Primarily, by itself, the basic
matter that democracies do not fight one another does not have any useful implications for the
foreign policymaker. Because it needs an additional premise, like the US can make Iraq into a
6
Erik Eckholm, “Now You See It: An Audit of KBR,” New York Times, 20 March 2005.
7
The Los Angeles Times requested access to the data on reports of violent incidents by contractors but received only a
heavily redacted version of the data that omitted the names of the security team members as well as the names of armed
forces members and government employees. The newspaper filed suit in November 2005 but was unable to get access to the
information. See David G. Savage, “U.S. Can Withhold Security Firm Data,” Los Angeles Times, 27 July 2006, for one of
many similar stories.

5. democracy at an acceptable cost, but which? The most important for why democracies do not
declare war is accountability. Indeed, in a liberal democratic government whose officials
elected must be answered to the people in the form of free elections, which forces officials to
consider alternatives to war.
5.1. How Democratic Peace Theory Extended and Criticized ?
Iraq can be a good example of liberal states not being more peaceful than despotic countries.
The war may be understood as a measure of self-defence. Nevertheless, liberal states were
taking aggressive steps towards a foreign country invading it. The liberal democratic peace
theory can therefore in its extended form be criticized. Also, Kant depicted a war outside of
the foedum pacificum „league of peace‟ which should be distinguished from and so his theory
may be violated in certain points but not altogether. Several explanations have been offered
why democracies rarely fight with each other, because democratic leaders must have
accountability to the voters for war, and therefore have an incentive to seek alternatives; that
such statesmen have practice settling matters by discussion or negotiation process, decide on
for the outcome of this process not by arms, and do the same in foreign policy; that
democracies view non-democracies as threatening, and go to war with them over issues which
would have been settled peacefully between democracies; and that democracies tend to be
wealthier than other countries, and the wealthy tend to avoid war, having more to lose, since
here again, it was not a liberal state fighting another one. On the contrary, the US has a
republican constitution and also was a member in the liberal pacific union which Kant argued8
the US domestic population and their institutions were not able to prevent the invasion.
There should be a republican constitution in order to prevent war and established a stable
democracy. It lightens the way or creates the framework of democratic peace theory. Because
governors need the consent of its citizens in order to gain legitimacy and citizens is required
in order to decide that war should be declared. On the contrary, which US show this as a proof
that, if a country do not have a republican constitution and the environment of the citizenship,
it will belonged to the ruler‟s decision.
Despite the fact that US use this theory for justifying the war, the democratic peace theory
is based on an abundance of historical evidence that democracies almost never go to war with
8
Immanuel Kant, „To Perpetual Peace‟ In Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History, and Morals/ Immanuel
Kant; Translated, with introduction by Ted Humphrey

6. each other. With the war in Iraq, however, democratic peace theory is facing major criticism.
For instance: although the UN did not confirm a resolution, the US together with its allies
went to invade Iraq in 2003 within the so called Operation Iraqi Freedom. Although the
military campaign was defended in the beginning with the threat of weapons of mass
destruction and the will to bring peace and democracy to Iraq, the non-interference principle
was violated. What‟s more, UN as a powerful liberal institution was not able to prevent the
US to invade Iraq being also a member.
6. President Bush, Secretary Condoleezza Rice and Bill Clinton
President Bush‟s speeches, it in the National Security Strategy, says, „„Freedom is the non-
negotiable demand of human dignity; the birth right of every person or in every civilization.‟‟
The strategy is so emphatic because the administration embraces the theory of a „„democratic
peace‟‟ the notion that liberal democracies are unlikely to use weapons of mass destructions,
sponsor terrorism, and undertake other activities that threaten their neighbours and the United
States. Therefore, the United States has a pivotal stake in enhancing the spread of
representative government.9 It describes as a real and true way of embracing and
implementing a theory is really a far more violent process. But, he does point us in the right
direction, namely, that democratic peace theory or more accurately the democratic peace
theory and its suitable theories lies at the heart of the Bush Doctrine‟s emphasis on democracy
promotion.
So, which stated the above the reason why US fighting in Iraq and encourager democratic
freedom there and elsewhere? The answer is to promote an end to war, and demonise, and to
minimize internal political violence. In other words, it is to foster global human security.
Surely, this is worth fighting for.
US‟s foreign policy has been claimed on the democratic peace theory. Secretary
Condoleezza Rice and Bush expressed their ideas by implementing and mentioning
democracy and democratic peace in their speeches. Moreover, Bill Clinton also gives
importance democratic peace while implementing his foreign policy.
9
Boot, Max. (2003) What Next? The Bush Foreign Policy Agenda beyond Iraq. The Weekly Standard, May 5, pp. 27–33.

7. The Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:
„After all, who truly believes, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that the status quo in the
Middle East was stable, beneficial and worth defending? How could it have been prudent to
preserve the state of affairs in a region that was incubating and exporting terrorism; where
the proliferation of deadly weapons was getting worse, not better; where authoritarian
regimes were projecting their failures onto innocent nations and peoples; where Lebanon
suffered under the boot heel of Syrian occupation; where a corrupt Palestinian Authority
cared more for its own preservation than for its people's aspirations; and where a tyrant such
as Saddam Hussein was free to slaughter his citizens, destabilize his neighbors and
undermine the hope of peace between Israelis and Palestinians? It is sheer fantasy to assume
that the Middle East was just peachy before America disrupted its alleged stability.
Had we believed this, and had we done nothing, consider all that we would have missed in
just the past year: A Lebanon that is free of foreign occupation and advancing democratic
reform. A Palestinian Authority run by an elected leader who openly calls for peace with
Israel. An Egypt that has amended its constitution to hold multiparty elections. A Kuwait
where women are now full citizens. And, of course, an Iraq that in the face of a horrific
insurgency has held historic elections, drafted and ratified a new national charter, and will
go to the polls again in coming days to elect a new constitutional government.‟10
“Democracy and the hope and progress it brings are the alternative to instability and to
hatred and terror. Lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance,” the American
president underlined in a speech at London‟s Whitehall Palace in November 2003 following
the fall of Baghdad.
If democratisation and peace promotion supported by capitalism by US, there can be severe
problems of implementation occur. As the United States is finding currently in Iraq, but at
least politicians may pick the target countries. If capitalism spreads by the sheer power of
example, then this implies that the locals and their usually autocratic rulers decide the pace of
events. The democratic peace proposition may be married to a crusading sprit, as has been
deplored by the most famous proponent of the democratic peace.11
7. Democracies Do not Start Wars
10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901711.html
11
Bruce Russett, “Bushwacking the Democratic Peace”, International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 6,No. 4 (2005).

8. Another important link between the war in Iraq and the Democratic Peace shows the idea
that US's military intervention somehow shows the idea that democracies do not start wars.
the threat was real or only perceived, a majority of the American population and the officials
they elected believed in good faith that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to American security.
All available evidence most gruesomely the videos of Kurdish refugees having been gassed
by weapons of mass destruction-tends to support that idea, and the evidence is still being
collected. Despite this threat, despite possessing the most lethal military in the history of the
world sure to win a relatively easy victory, despite the raw wounds in the American psyche
still left open since September 11, and despite an electorate generally supportive of the war
effort and a unified-party government, America still deliberated for almost eighteen months
before a single soldier set foot on Iraqi soil. Even then, it was not a unilateral action but an
effort of contributions to varying degrees by nearly fifty nations. Steps taken to ensure the
safety of innocent Iraqi citizens were unparalleled in the history of warfare, and while not fail-
proof they rightly preserved untold numbers of people. Indeed, far from refuting the
'Democratic Peace,' the war in Iraq might be one of the best offers of proof for its underlying
truth.
8. The Purpose for Foreign Policy of US
The final and most important of these observations is that the promoters of democracy must
not yield in the face of setbacks, be they military, political, or theoretical. There will always
be bad persons who wish to ignore human beings the freedom they were granted by birth
right. Those who wish to see them claimed again and again that freedom must not relent.
There will always be honest and well-meaning scholars, indifferent moral relativists, and self-
interested tyrants who will for different reasons dismiss the idea that democracy is inherently
just and peaceful. Adherents to the 'Democratic Peace' in whatever future incarnation it might
take must not give the floor, so to speak, but dictate the terms of the debate.
The purpose for foreign policy of US is straightforward. Indeed, The United States and also
other international actors who try to establish democracy or human rights need to continue to
promote democracy. However, they must seek to help democratizing states implement
reforms in the correct order. In particular, popular elections should not to precede the building
of institutions that will control the bad intention incentives for politicians to call for war.
In still democracy in the whole world on the basis of American foreign policy is
shaped. Democratic peace theory, democracies do not fight with each other and according to

9. this thesis emphasizes on the basis of a peaceful world is to create a world composed
of democratic countries. Which form the basis of American foreign policy on a foundation
of American foreign policy is shaped in still democracy in the whole wide world. Democratic
peace theory, democracies do not fight with each other and according to
this thesis emphasizes on the basis of a peaceful world is to create a world composed
of democratic countries. Which form the basis of American foreign policy? America, for
the market economy places great emphasis on the promotion of
democracy, because peace, democracy and the economy‟s integrated relationship between
them is absolute. Contemporary discourse on the democratization process of the region is in
the fact that the heart of the Middle East problem. Moreover, democratization trends in
the countries of the region is consisted on a phobia and terror in the name of the
world peace and world order in America's increasing interest in the region. In
this framework, announced by the Bush administration's "Greater Middle East Initiative" in
the set as the ultimate goal of regional democratic reforms. Understanding
the differences in the implementation of democracy and the small pieces by the force of the
general situation. Iraq Government adopted the draft which stated Iraqi Oil Law in Iraq has
been accepted by the Assembly, so the Iraqi democracy will be successfully passed exam
when it passed.
9. Conclusion
In summary, it can be said that war, external influences and the economically more
advanced in terms of the democratic community of nations, the possibility
of diminishing, even as an extension of the legitimate policy consideration is the shape of a
phenomenon, even harder. War in these countries as a last resort, but will never be allowed to
occur is perceived as a way of life. On the other hand, scholars such as Barry Buzan, such
assisting on top of that, "area of peace" policies beyond being "state of war" may have
started to resemble. What‟s more, Democratic peace theory, states would be deprived
of political disputes, not only for their relation is not based on perception of war is far
from advocating violence. Insome democratic countries,more weak and authoritarian countrie
s such as Iraq, regime change, even if they are prone to use force to go to their own citizens to
justify the intervention of their obligation to hear the multilateral consent.

10. ,
,

11. REFERANCES
Bernard Finel and Kristin Lord, “The Surprising Logic of Transparency,” International tudies
Quarterly 43, no. 2 (June 1999): 315–39. See 316.
Boot, Max. (2003) What Next? The Bush Foreign Policy Agenda beyond Iraq. The Weekly
Standard, May 5, pp. 27–33
Bruce Russett, “Bushwacking the Democratic Peace”, International Studies Perspectives, Vol.
6,No. 4 (2005).
Daniele Archibugi, The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward Cosmopolitan
Democracy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008.
Erik Eckholm, “Now You See It: An Audit of KBR,” New York Times, 20 March 2005.
Government Accountability Office (GAO), report to Congress, “Rebuilding Iraq: Actions
Needed to Improve Use of Private Security Providers,” (GAO-05-737), July 2005.
Kant, I. (2007) Perpetual Peace Minneapolis: Filiquarian Publishing
Kant, „To Perpetual Peace‟ In Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History, and
Morals/ Immanuel Kant; Translated, with introduction by Ted Humphrey
RAY, JAMES LEE. (2003) A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research
Programme: Does It Falsify Realism (or Neorealism)? In Progress in International Relations
Theory: Appraising the Field, edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
The Department of Defence is now required to keep regular census numbers of contract
employees in Iraq but that information is not publicized. See Department of Defence
Instruction (DoDI), no. 3020.41, “Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany the U.S.
Armed Forces,” 3 October 2005, Section 4.5. and 6.2.6.
The Los Angeles Times requested access to the data on reports of violent incidents by
contractors but received only a heavily redacted version of the data that omitted the names of
the security team members as well as the names of armed forces members and government
employees. The newspaper filed suit in November 2005 but was unable to get access to the
information. See David G. Savage, “U.S. Can Withhold Security Firm Data,” Los Angeles
Times, 27 July 2006, for one of many similar stories.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901711.html
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16, or Transparency International,
available at research/surveysindices/cpi/2007.