Failure Mechanisms in Democratic Regimes – An Army's Role

> in the present moment we now call anything we favor “democratic” and anything we oppose “un-democratic.”

I think the author, like many today who try to disparage democracy, gets too caught up in the founders as scripture and old word usages.

The modern usage of democracy is at least a century old, per the article itself - hardly the 'present moment'.

Democracy is superior not because some founders wrote some scripture, but because of its moral and rational foundation, that all are created equal, all have universal, inalienable rights that include liberty, and thus nobody else has the right to tell them what to do without their consent. Thus only the people can legitimize a government, and governments exist to protect the people's rights.

And yes, oppression of the minority is a danger, but the solution isn't to have some self-selected people take power from the democracy and call themselves a 'republic' (and what stops those people from oppression, corruption, etc. Why would they be superior?). The solution is human rights, as implemented in the Bill of Rights. The majority can't violate the rights of the minority.

Johnathan Wainright admonished soldiers demobilizing from the second World War:

“You have seen, in the lands where you worked and fought and where many of your comrades died, what happens when the people of a nation lose interest in their government. You have seen what happens when they follow false leaders. You have seen what happens when a nation accepts hate and intolerance.

We are all determined that what happened in Europe and in Asia must not happen to our country…If you see intolerance and hate, speak out against them. Make your individual voices heard, not for selfish things, but for honor and decency among men, for the rights of all people.”

From the author's note at the end:

"An earlier version of this article was submitted to the U.S. Army War College’s War Room blog back in the fall of 2024.... The piece was accepted and scheduled for publication in February. I found out on February 25, 2025 that USAWC had changed their mind and decided not to publish the piece, after having to pull another previously-published piece 'due to sensitivities' of 'unnamed critics that wield the power'."

The author has a quite narrow definition of democracy. I’d argue that any definition that makes checks and balances non democratic should be revised.

The speed with which the author diverts focus away from the perpetrators of the Abu Graib atrocities and toward Washington is, I think, a reason to take some of these conclusions with a grain of salt. I do think his linked evidence supports the argument that Washington played a key role in eroding norms behind PoW treatment, but I do not think it supports the idea that Washington is somehow more responsible than the soldiers and officers perpetrating, and complicit in, those acts.

The broad failure of human rights enforcement required for these events absolutely could not have happened over the objections of all, or even most, on the military side. Tacit and widespread approval of Washington's agenda on 'terrorism' was, at the very least, a precondition.

Taking this in context of his broader point: I can see why it would be comforting to believe institutional norms tend to be stronger than petty politics, but if that's the case he wants to make, I'm not convinced. To me, the preponderance of evidence, and the typical patterns that occur when a military attempts to circumvent democratic processes to 'safeguard rule of law', would indicate that military norms around human rights tend to break down, in fact, much quicker than the norms of democratic civil procedure. I also have no good reason to believe the US military is exceptionally ahead of the curve in this regard.

Could there be a situation where military intervention prevents a democratic state from deteriorating further? Theoretically. Are military leaders, generally, excellent judges of when such intervention would be in the public interest? Most of the history of military coups seems to indicate 'no.'

As a military professional how do you determine morality?

If morality is the letter of the law, that law can be changed by an unjust majority. If the majority of Americans think it is OK to put dog collars on prisoners in Abu Ghraib, who are you to deny them that?

What else do we have to base our morals off of, religion?

> Hamas instead went to war with its coalition partner (Fatah, who remains in control of the West Bank) and took control of Gaza by a program of internal repression and political assassination.

One interesting note about the Hamas example is that it was the last election for the same reason a lot of countries have a last election: a powerful foreign imperialist nation intervened. In this case, Israel intervened directly to prop up Hamas in order to ensure Palestine destabilizion and prevent the election of a more leftist government. This was achieved through assassinations by the IDF of Palestinian politicians as well as directly funding Hamas.

Here is Benjamin Netanyahu quoted directly (https://m.maariv.co.il/journalists/opinions/Article-1008080), translated from Hebrew:

> Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.

Netanyahu's associate and a high ranking IDF member said: (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.p...)

> Openly Hamas is an enemy. Covertly, it’s an ally.

To broaden the scope back to beyond just Israel and Palestine and focus more on globally the destabilization of democratic governments through the efforts of imperialist nations, perhaps the army's role may also include efforts against said imperialist nations or their local allies and representatives.

In the USA I wonder if that means there'll be USA military units operating against what are functionally proxy arms of the PRC "turncoat" (but in their minds supporting democracy) units of the USA military. Living in Taiwan I can't fathom ever finding myself on the same side as the PRC on anything... Unless the nightmare situation of a full American slide into hyper imperialist fascism happens and there's basically only a couple superpowers on Earth capable of resisting them. Their jokes about invading Greenland and Canada are really sounding less like jokes every day...

I would argue that the social contract is a useful fiction, the same as 'divine right.'