Domino Theory

The Iraq War’s architects espoused a neo-domino theory in support of it. Where in Southeast Asia, it was feared that if one country fell to the onslaught of Communism, another would follow, and then another, like a chain of dominoes. In Southwest Asia, it was, and in some circles still is, hoped that if one country, in this case Iraq, could be converted to a Western style liberal democracy, others in the region would follow. An assumption of theirs was that democratic Arab states would be inherently more pro-American, anti-extremism. This doesn’t seem like it would necessarily be the case, considering the electoral victory of Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Mahmoud Ahmadenijad in Iran.

So they assumed that planting the seed of democracy in Mesopotamia would allow it to flourish throughout the region, eventually supplanting the widespread hatred of America with an oasis of pro-western thought. It’s not that democracy is the end in its self, it’s merely a means. Otherwise the base fact of elections would please them; instead, they condemn the results when the winner is a group or a person that they don’t approve of. While there have been elections in countries through out the near east, these may be in spite of what is happening in Iraq, and not inspired by it.

Also, an election does not make a democracy. A democracy must be embraced by the populous, and the entire form of government must be based around it. Without that foundation, an election will not accomplish anything. There are elections in Cuba, China, and Iran; there were elections in Saddam’s Iraq. Elections do not make a democracy.

A different sort of domino effect seems to have happened. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, extremism and terrorism has flourished, arriving in places that it hadn’t been before, at least not in its present form. It has destabilized the region, leading to additional wars, and setting the stage for civil wars in other countries.

Instead of engendering peace, just last war there was a war between Israel and Lebanon that took over 1,500 lives in the course of a month. Right now, internecine fighting between rival Palestinian factions has raised the threat of a Palestinian civil war. Right now, the worst infighting in Lebanon since the end of their civil war seventeen years ago is occurring. Since 2003 there has been a low-level insurgency against the Saudi monarchy. There has been an increase in terrorism in England, Spain, Turkey, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Jordan, and Egypt. There have been many attempted attacks in many other countries as well.

If the goals of the Iraq war were to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction, establish a liberal democracy in Iraq, hinder the efforts of Al Qaeda and related groups, promote democracy throughout the region, liberate the people of Iraq, and ensure the security of the United States, it has been a failure on every account.

Poignant Parallels from A Dissenter’s Guide to Foreign Policy, or How History Repeats its Self

Here's how this works; first, every time it says "Vietnam" put in its place "Iraq", then where appropriate, substitute "Iran" or "Syria" for "China", "Islamofascism" for "Communism", "Arab" for "Asian", and so forth. None of this was written after 1968, yet you can hear the echoes across time.

“During the past fifteen years the two major triumphs of Chinese policy have been in Korea and Vietnam. In Korea, by hurling American forces back to the 38^th parallel, China proved to the world that it was a power to be reckoned with. In Vietnam it watches the Americans bleed, the Vietnamese grow increasingly disaffected, and the Asian masses grow more anti-American, without having to expend much of its material resources or any military manpower.” Pg. 85-6

“Consider, by way of contrast, our record in Vietnam. The other war, the effort to “pacify” the countryside, is, after eleven years and many billions of dollars, still “at the beginning of a beginning”-to quote Senator Mike Mansfield’s words. Imagine the outcry if the U.S. Army was to be put in charge of flagging Head Start programs in Mississippi and Alabama. The decision to transfer authority over pacification efforts to the American military command in South Vietnam is no less ludicrous. Men engaged in a shooting war, exposed to a totally different cultural experience, are being asked to teach the Vietnamese how to achieve stability, freedom, and democracy. The notion that their efforts hold any promise of success is nonsense on stilts.” Pg. 79

“Every opportunity to rely on multilateral rather than bilateral relations ought to be pursued. Every effort to create and utilize supranational agencies ought to be made. This obligation falls most heavily on those nations that are currently most powerful; for they have the defensive power that make them less liable to suffer vital injury through pursuit of this realistic goal. This is why the decision of the United States to bypass the United Nations in Vietnam is perhaps the greatest of the many tragedies of that pointless war.” Pg. 92

“A justification may be argued in domino theories or indefensible analogies with Europe in the 1930s, or warnings that if we don’t fight here we soon will have to fight… in Hawaii or California.” Pg. 98

“In Vietnam an American preoccupation with the freedom and well-being of other men, morally inspired but sentimental in its analysis of real possibilities, has converged with an American fear of Communism which naively exaggerates the unity, power, and threat of the Communist movement.” Pg. 100

“The second argument currently being made relies on the character of guerilla warfare. By the special use they make of the civilian population, it is said, the guerillas themselves destroy all conventional distinctions.” Pg. 308

Addendum

I have to put this up under a new post because I don’t want to go through all the trouble of formatting all the tables in the previous one, I’m lazy, it’s a character flaw. How I came up with the worth of states in comparison to that of Florida was this: I took every state’s population and divided it by its electoral votes. I saw that Florida had the largest number of people to each of its votes, so I chose to use that as a baseline. Taking the number of people per electoral vote for each state, I used that number to divide that of Florida’s to come up with how many times that of Florida it is worth. The only thing special about my choice as a baseline is that it allowed every state to have a number greater than 1.

Inequity In the Electoral College

This is some "analysis" I did of the possibilities and characteristics of the way that the Electoral College is set up.

States won by 1	Population	Electoral Votes	States won by2	Population	Electoral Votes
California	36132147	55	North Carolina	8683242	15
Texas	22859968	35	Virginia	7567465	13
New York	19254630	31	Massachusetts	6398743	12
Florida	17789864	27	Missouri	5800310	11
Illinois	12763371	21	Tennessee	5962959	11
Pennsylvania	12429616	21	Washington	6287759	11
Ohio	11464042	20	Arizona	5939292	10
Michigan	10120860	17	Maryland	5600388	10
Georgia	9072576	15	Minnesota	5132799	10
New Jersey	8717925	15	Wisconsin	5536201	10
Indiana	6271973	11	Alabama	4557808	9
	166876972	268	Colorado	4665177	9
			Kentucky	4173405	9
			Louisiana	4523628	8
			South Carolina	4255083	8
			Connecticut	3510297	7
			Iowa	2966334	7
			Oklahoma	3547884	7
			Oregon	3641056	7
			Arkansas	2779154	6
			Kansas	2744687	6
			Mississippi	2921088	6
			Nebraska	1758787	5
			Nevada	2414807	5
			New Mexico	1928384	5
			West Virginia	1816856	5
			Hawaii	1275194	4
			Idaho	1429096	4
			Maine	1321505	4
			New Hampshire	1309940	4
			Rhode Island	1076189	4
			Utah	2469585	4
			Alaska	663661	3
			D.C.	550521	3
			Delaware	843524	3
			Montana	935670	3
			North Dakota	636677	3
			South Dakota	775933	3
			Vermont	623050	3
			Wyoming	509294	3
				129533432	270
Total Voters	85107255		Total Voters	77720059
Votes Won	85107255	___268	Votes Won	39637230	[270
Votes Lost	0		Votes Lost	38082829
Vote Total 2	124744485		Vote Total 3	39637230

That table shows how it would be possible for a candidate to receive in excess of 75% of the popular vote, yet still lose due to the electoral count, and that is with clear majority wins in every single state, not pluralities brought on by three or more candidates. If you included those possibilities, the discrepancy would be even larger. The situation has one candidate winning states worth 268 electoral votes, and carrying them with 100% of the vote. The remaining states are split 51/49 in favor of the other candidate. While such an occurrence is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible, it highlights what I believe to be a deep flaw in the means by which we elect our commander in chief. The pie chart below illustrates the incongruency very well:

The following table expresses the relative worth of each individual vote, as compared in multiples of Florida, which I found has the least value of any other state.

State	Population	Electoral Votes	Per Vote	Rank	Worth (Multiples of Florida)
Alabama	4557808	9	506423	24	1.3
Alaska	663661	3	221220	5	2.98
Arizona	5939292	10	593929	43	1.11
Arkansas	2779154	6	463192	19	1.42
California	36132147	55	656948	50	1.003
Colorado	4665177	9	518353	27	1.27
Connecticut	3510297	7	501471	23	1.31
D.C.	550521	3	183506	2	3.59
Delaware	843524	3	281174	8	2.34
Florida	17789864	27	658883	51	1
Georgia	9072576	15	604838	45	1.09
Hawaii	1275194	4	318798	10	2.07
Idaho	1429096	4	357274	14	1.84
Illinois	12763371	21	607779	46	1.08
Indiana	6271973	11	570179	36	1.16
Iowa	2966334	7	428047	17	1.54
Kansas	2744687	6	457447	18	1.44
Kentucky	4173405	9	463711	20	1.42
Louisiana	4523628	8	565453	35	1.17
Maine	1321505	4	330376	12	1.99
Maryland	5600388	10	560038	34	1.18
Massachusetts	6398743	12	533228	31	1.24
Michigan	10120860	17	595344	44	1.11
Minnesota	5132799	10	513279	26	1.28
Mississippi	2921088	6	486848	22	1.35
Missouri	5800310	11	527300	29	1.25
Montana	935670	3	311890	9	2.11
Nebraska	1758787	5	351757	13	1.87
Nevada	2414807	5	482961	21	1.36
New Hampshire	1309940	4	327485	11	2.01
New Jersey	8717925	15	581195	40	1.13
New Mexico	1928384	5	385676	16	1.71
New York	19254630	31	621117	48	1.06
North Carolina	8683242	15	578882	39	1.14
North Dakota	636677	3	212225	4	3.1
Ohio	11464042	20	573202	38	1.15
Oklahoma	3547884	7	506840	25	1.3
Oregon	3641056	7	520150	28	1.27
Pennsylvania	12429616	21	591886	42	1.11
Rhode Island	1076189	4	269047	7	2.45
South Carolina	4255083	8	531885	30	1.24
South Dakota	775933	3	258644	6	2.55
Tennessee	5962959	11	542087	32	1.22
Texas	22859968	35	653141	49	1.009
Utah	2469585	4	617396	47	1.07
Vermont	623050	3	207683	3	3.17
Virginia	7567465	13	582112	41	1.13
Washington	6287759	11	571614	37	1.15
West Virginia	1816856	5	363371	15	1.81
Wisconsin	5536201	10	553620	33	1.19
Wyoming	509294	3	169764	1	3.88

As you can see, most of the states have similar worths to Florida, while a few peak much higher than the rest. In particular, a vote in Wyoming is worth nearly four times as much as a similar vote in Florida, with Washington DC not being very far below Wyoming.

Worth	# of States
1	3
1.1	10
1.2	9
1.3	7
1.4	5
1.5	1
1.7	1
1.8	2
1.9	1
2	2
2.1	2
2.3	1
2.5	1
2.6	1
3	1
3.1	1
3.2	1
3.6	1
3.9	1

The preceding table shows the distribution of vote value among the states. States worth 3 or more times Florida are very rare, with only 5 of them, making up less than one-tenth of the total. On the other hand, states worth less than twice that of Florida number 39. This next chart contains the same information as the table above, just in a more aesthetic way.

One of the bedrock fundamentals of the idea of the United States of America is equal justice under law. As it stands now, people's votes in presidential elections are far from equal. When someone's vote is worth nearly four times that of another's, that is not an example of equal treatment under the law. The way it is set up now should be changed; the Electoral College doesn't work in a country that values equality. It should be replaced with direct popular voting, Instant Run Off Voting, or any of a number of alternatives that provide for every single person's vote to be worth and treated the same. No one should be granted special statuses, or lesser ones.