THE IRAQ WAR: NEW PERSPECTIVES 35
intervention and state-building, paired with the American war aims, led the coalition
to address the wrong issues. It will also analyse the importance of cultural realities, an
element that the coalition disregarded.
Overview of the Theoretical Framework
The key concepts of this case study present two difficulties that need to be addressed
both by scholars and conflict practitioners. Ideals of ‘peace’ and ‘democracy’ must be
interrogated in order to understand the coalition’s perspective on state-building.
Trying to universalise the absolute concepts of peace or democracy can be dangerous;
as Zakaria (1997: 42-43) notes, “democracy without constitutional liberalism is not
simply inadequate, but dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of
power, ethnic divisions, and even war”. Although written in 1997, this statement is
particularly apt for a discussion of the transition of power from the coalition to the
Iraqis. The ideals of democracy and human rights are, in the West, synonymous with
peace, but other the ideals of other societies must be considered. Rasmussen (2010:
186) argues that:
the definition of the content of peace belongs squarely to the Western
‘custodians of peace’, and anyone who rejects their notion of peace is
acting against the true interests not only of the Western occupiers but
also of the Iraqi people. The ideology of peace thus conceptually denies
the Iraqis the possibility of formulating unique Iraqi interests in favour of
a universalist claim on democratic peace.
The universalism of such concepts have obscured the gap between Western
preconceptions of their benefits for Iraqi society, and the actual situation in Iraq,
where worldviews and cultural outlook differ from those in the West. In that sense,
cultural realities in Iraq were ignored by the coalition which sought peace in
incompatible terms. Many scholars consider that the mainstream model is ill-suited
for conflicts that take place outside of Europe and underline the importance of
challenging it to keep up with the current situation (Ansari 2006; Cochrane 2008;
Piiparinen 2015, Rasmussen 2010).