Democracy and peace are perceived to go hand in hand. The Democratic peace theory states that countries that are democracies won’t go to war with each other, as discussed in class. And based on recent history this is somewhat believable due to the lack, or scarcity, of armed conflicts between two democratic countries. “According to “The Politics of Peace”, a 1995 report by the Economist, of the 416 wars between sovereign states recorded between 1816 and 1980, only 12 were fought between democracies”. If we look at the United States and Great Britain for an instance, two democratically settled governments, you won’t find any conflicts in recent history, post the 13 colonies gaining their independence. There’s a cultural/normative model that asserts that through this concept of shared ideas, norms, and culture, war is avoided. As well as democratic states having high conflict resolution and strong interdependent economic ties, diminishes the likelihood of war.
Now when we apply this to real life occurrences, we see that the majority of our former United States leaders at the time of office, held on to this theory of international relations and applied it, as well as international organizations such as NATO. We can see that with the George H.W. Bush administration the theory was used to pursue political interests. The theory will help Washington achieve in obtaining a more stable, peaceful, and prosperous middle east, as Iraq transitions itself into a democracy. The desired outcome for this holds that Iraq won’t become as much of a threat to the United States or Israel in terms of developing weapons of mass destruction or sponsoring terrorism. Did the United States make a rightful decision in excessively promoting democracy as a means of peace in a region full of conflict of such magnitude? Others may argue that he settlement of democracy in Iraq could consequentially start wars in the region.