Semi-Daily Journal

"The first was the danger that Saddamist weapons of mass destruction would escape from the hands of the state terrorist (but deterrable) regime of Saddam Hussein into the hands of undeterrable non-state terrorists. This has happened:..."

Yes, and it wouldn't have happened if Saddam Hussein had stayed in power for another decade (giving money to suicide bombers in Israel, but no biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons), and then Qusay had been in power for a decade or so (again, not allowing access to biological chemical, or nuclear weapons), and then Iraq had undergone a peaceful and orderly transition to a liberal democracy.

Bwahahahaha! Tell me, doc, what do YOU think was the most likely scenario for Saddam, Qusay, and future governments of Iraq?

Do you honestly think that Saddam Hussein, seeing Iran's nuclear weapons development program, would completely abandon his own? Or that he could be kept from doing so by the United Nations?

"The second was the fear that U.S. invasion would produce a bunch of effective Al Qaeda recruitment videos."

They no longer have the excuse of a large U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia (the land of Mecca and Medinah) as a recruiting device. They've gotta use something.

We'll see how enthusiastic the Iraqi people are to have a bunch of Al-Qaeda terrorists in their country.

What evidence is there to believe that Saddam really had WMD in the run-up to Gulf War II? Can we just assume he did?

The UN couldn't find them, now we can't find them. As of 1998, everyone admits that at least 95% of his stock had been destroyed. There is no evidence that he reconstituted WMD programs between 1998-2003 that I am aware of. So we are talking about 5% (or less) of his c. 1991 stock that we can't VERIFY was destroyed. (None of it was weaponzied by the way). But every Iraqi scientist we can get are hands on says this 5% WAS destroyed between 1998 and 2003. Is it possible they are telling the truth?

I'm not saying he didn't have them, because you can never prove a negative, and of course, he was/is a thug. But to simply assume that he did is not based on much evidence, if any at all. Or have I missed something?

If Al Qaeda and the other terrorists pour into Iraq to fight us that's a good thing. That way we know where they are and we can kill them.

Nuclear weapons are not made in a garage. There is simply no evidence that Iraq had a nuclear power or weapons program after 1990. With continued air force pressure, I can not imagine a nuclear facility ever being built in Iraq. As for other WMDs. We have as yet found no evidence.

jlevy

You need only press "post" once. Pay no attention to the delay. The post will be there.

We have 150,000 troops in Iraq, the British another 5,000. We have captured most of the deck of cards. Still, there is no evidence of any WMDs. The chances that there were any on the eve of the war seem very slight.

"We'll see how enthusiastic the Iraqi people are to have a bunch of Al-Qaeda terrorists in their country."

Hard to say at this point. What we know however is that Iraqis who cooperate with the US are at risk of being assassinated by the locals (and not just As-Qaeda kind-of-guys.)

"Do you honestly think that Saddam Hussein, seeing Iran's nuclear weapons development program, would completely abandon his own?"

Professor DeLong's point wasn't about possession of WMD's but rather our ability to deter or not their use. How can you argue that we are safer now that we don't know anymore who's got them?

BTW, Iran is pursuing its nuclear program BECAUSE Iraq did not have one and it was invaded. Many dictators are fanatic and possibly isane, but few are stupid. They tend to draw the right lessons as far as their survival and that of their regime is concerned, you know...

"We'll see how enthusiastic the Iraqi people are to have a bunch of Al-Qaeda terrorists in their country."

Hard to say at this point. What we know however is that Iraqis who cooperate with the US are at risk of being assassinated by the locals (and not just As-Qaeda kind-of-guys.)

"Do you honestly think that Saddam Hussein, seeing Iran's nuclear weapons development program, would completely abandon his own?"

Professor DeLong's point wasn't about possession of WMD's but rather our ability to deter or not their use. How can you argue that we are safer now that we don't know anymore who's got them?

BTW, Iran is pursuing its nuclear program BECAUSE Iraq did not have one and it was invaded. Many dictators are fanatic and possibly isane, but few are stupid. They tend to draw the right lessons as far as their survival and that of their regime is concerned, you know...

" Nuclear weapons are not made in a garage. "

Google "David Hahn" and "Radioactive Boy Scout".

The best way is to use the separate comments window, press 'post', and then to kill the window. That usually works for me, and has never produced more than a pair of duplicate posts.

Pouncer,

I did the google, and Hahn was not trying to make a bomb but a breeder reactor, and got nowhere near success in doing that. Journalistic hype apart, this case is more proof that small scale efforts with radioactive materials will not result in a bomb.

There is a third reason. That the US would eliminate Saddam and leave an Iraq controlled by the mosques and taking an anti-American stance.

America is in a hard place. As long as there is a commitment to rebuild Iraq, the destruction of infrastructure in Iraq is an additional burden to America. Since these assets are not easily protected, it is difficult to stay. The NRA would love Iraq. There are more weapons per person than in the US and these are not squirrel rifles but AK47s and RPGs.

Sure Saddam was a bad guy and the world had to do something eventually. However, the US charging in alone with no plan for post war Iraq was not very smart. Whether or not the Iraqis like the Jihadists infiltrating their country is a moot point. The only force capable of stopping them was Saddam's army and police. Since the US dismantled them there is a vacuum.

Perhaps the Iraqis would rather have the Arab fighters than the Americans. Once the Americans are gone the Iraqis can take care of the outsiders. Will this breed more terrorists that attack the US? Possibly, but fighting a war in Iraq was never a good way to stop terrorism.

I'm sure that Mark Bahner and Joe Willingham will have LOTS to say about the successful attack on the UN compound, once they get rid of the taste of shoe leather.

There is now no chance of the US being able to shuffle the cost, in blood and treasure, of occupation onto anyone else. I wonder how much of a drag the occupation will impose on the US economy over the next decade.

My condolences to the dead and wounded.

What are we about, spending $50 to $100 billion building Iraq? What about Afghanistan? What about the $5 billion a month to suuport American tropps in the 2 countries?

What about the toll of killed and wounded American and British soldiers?

There was an equal chance of WMD falling into terroist hands if the US did not invade. It is also better to have terroist fighting armed solders in Iraq than un-armed US citizens in the US.

Bakho raises the issue that most concerns me. During the cold war, the US supported dictators because it was expidient. I am concerned that the government will do the same thing with the mullahs. The last thing the world needs is another radical theocracy with access to oil wealth.

"I'm sure that Mark Bahner and Joe Willingham will have LOTS to say about the successful attack on the UN compound, once they get rid of the taste of shoe leather."

???? At least Joe and I know these folks (Saddam and friends, and Osama and friends) are truly dangerous people. And the world will be a far better place when they are in prison or dead.

If you are crazy enough to think that Baathists and Al Qaeda only attack people when they (Baathists and Al Qaeda) are attacked, this bombing actually proves exactly the opposite.

"There is now no chance of the US being able to shuffle the cost, in blood and treasure, of occupation onto anyone else."

You mean that the U.N. only provides humanitarian aid when it's safe to do so? Well, Joe and I could have told them that Saddam's Baathists and Al Qaeda's nut jobs are cold blooded killers. That's all the more reason to hunt them down, and imprison or kill them. But it certainly doesn't surprise me if the U.N. won't help to do that.

I don't think the U.N. is merely incompetent, I think it is actually evil. Any organization that has Libya chairing its "Human Rights" Commission is evil.

The attack on the UN shows what monsters we are dealing with. Whatever one thinks of the UN, the victims were civilians trying to help the Iraqi people and don't deserve to be murdered by vile terrorist scum.

Once again we have proof of the righteousness of our cause and the wickedness of our enemies. May God bless the brave men and women of our armed forces and grant them victory after victory.

JW,

I see no valour in shooting a cameraman from a tank. But then we all know that fair and balanced information is not what you want.

DSW

I don't doubt the UN does some good humanitarian work, but Mark is right. Putting Libya at the head of the Human Rights Commission is like making Charlie Manson head of the Boy Scouts.

We need a new international organization where only countries with democratically elected governments can be members.

"Professor DeLong's point wasn't about possession of WMD's but rather our ability to deter or not their use. How can you argue that we are safer now that we don't know anymore who's got them?"

The answer is, "easily." I can ***easily*** argue that we're safer with LESS total weapons in the world available to crazy people.

Let's suppose Saddam Hussein had 100 pounds of anthrax in a form like what was used in the anthrax letter attacks in the U.S., but that Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons.

Well, do you honestly think that Saddam Hussein, 10 years from now, would have LESS anthrax, and also still have no nuclear weapons? And what about after Qusay replaced Saddam...do you still think that, after a decade of Qusay's rule, he'd have LESS anthrax, and still and no nuclear weapons?

This way,

1) Saddam's regime was ended before he had the chance to build a large number of WMD, if any at all,

2) Qusay will never get a chance to add any WMD to whatever Saddam had, and

2) even though there was a short time of chaos in Iraq (during which weapons might have been stolen), at least we have 150,000 U.S. troops--including some whose only purpose is to hunt for WMD--on the ground when Saddam's regime collapsed.

Saddam and Qusay's regimes were going to end ***sometime*** in the future. It's completely unrealistic to project that, when their regimes ended in that DISTANT future, that they would have not created more WMD than they had right now. Further, it's also completely unrealistic to project that the WMD that they had would be more safe from getting into the wrong hands than now.

Look what happened to the Shah of Iran. When his regime collapsed, it didn't result in a liberal democracy. There's no reason to think that Iraq would be MORE likely to give way to a liberal democracy if Saddam or Qusay had been overthrown by...Iran, for instance. Or religious nuts from Al Qaeda.

To argue, as Dr. DeLong does, that we are signficantly MORE endangered by the U.S. military overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and the U.S. government attempting to create a liberal democracy to replace him, simply isn't supported by the majority of evidence. The majority of evidence indicates:

1) Saddam and Qusay would have continued to attempt to develop WMD as long as they were in power,

2) when they eventually lost power, there would likely be MORE WMD, and far less chance that the U.S. military could recover those WMD, and

3) when they lost power, there would be less likelihood of a liberal democracy coming in to replace them than there is now.

It's *possible* that the U.S. is in greater danger as a result of invading Iraq, and trying to bring about a liberal democracy. But the evidence to date certainly doesn't conclusively show that to be true.

When Dr. DeLong uses phrases like, "fairly unbalanced" to describe what the U.S. government has done in Iraq to date, he simply shows his own lack of balance. (Lack of objectivity.) What the U.S. government has done so far in Iraq may be wrong, but it certainly isn't crazy. Especially compared to other actions of the U.S. government that I assume Dr. DeLong supports (i.e., the unprovoked military aggression against Serbia, and the occupation of Kosovo).

"With continued air force pressure, I can not imagine a nuclear facility ever being built in Iraq."

1) Do you mean the U.S. air force, or the Israeli air force? :-/

2) Can you imagine a nuclear facility ever being built in Iran, even with U.S. air force pressure? How about North Korea?

"We need a new international organization where only countries with democratically elected governments can be members."

That would be preferable.

But even better would be to have no United Nations at all. The purpose of the United Nations was to prevent wars...especially world wars.

Since democratically elected governments don't go to war with one another (e.g., Britain will never go to war with Germany or France, Japan will never go to war with South Korea or Taiwan) there is no purpose to be served by having the representatives of all the democratically elected governments continuously meeting in a single place.

"I see no valour in shooting a cameraman from a tank."

Your opinion on the issue will mean something to me, when you have served in a tank that's been attacked by a person using an RPG, or similar device.

Mark,

I realise that, as a Libertarian, you are pretty much immune to learning from history, but before you repeat that crap about democratically elected governments not going to war with each other, I'd like you to have a think about the 1914-1918 war.

You know, the one where Britain and France went to war with Germany ...

The single best incident to focusa on from the POV of democracies going to war with each other is probably the SPD debate about whether or not to vote for War Credits.

Apart from that, you and Joe should keep it up. You improve the morale of the center-left by reminding us that our enemies on the Right have problems with fruit loops as well.

Ian Whitchurch

"Since democratically elected governments don't go to war with one another (e.g., Britain will never go to war with Germany or France, Japan will never go to war with South Korea or Taiwan) there is no purpose to be served by having the representatives of all the democratically elected governments continuously meeting in a single place."

The democratic countries need to meet in order to promote free trade, work on environmental problems, and work out differences in a friendly manner. Also they could plan ways to cooperate in dealing with non-democratic countries, in particular "rogue states" like Iran and North Korea.

"You know, the one where Britain and France went to war with Germany ..."

Not a single one of them was a true democracy. In a TRUE democracy, every PERSON has a right to vote. Women weren't allowed to vote in any of those countries, at the time they went to war.

Further, only someone truly ignorant about history would call the government of Kaiser Wilhelm a "democracy." I challenge you to find a single professor of history who has written a book about WWI who calls the government of Kaiser Wilhelm a democracy.

"...our enemies on the Right have problems with fruit loops as well."

You'd certainly recognize a fellow fruit loop, Ian, you historically ignorant twit.

Me: "I see no valour in shooting a cameraman from a tank."

Mark Bahner: Your opinion on the issue will mean something to me, when you have served in a tank that's been attacked by a person using an RPG, or similar device.

Like I said: no valour. I am aware the tanks are to attack unarmoured, and preferably unarmed, civilians.

DSW

I've already written about how none of the countries that started WWI were democracies.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/001488.html

See my post of February 3, at 3:16 PM.

From that post:

"The idea that Germany was a "democracy" in WWI is also ludicrous. The Kaiser and the military had all the real power. If Germany was a democracy, it's very puzzling that the UAW Daimler-Chrysler website has this comment:"

"1918-1919: Germany makes the transition to democracy after WWI."

http://www.uaw-daimlerchryslerntc.org/new/worktog/everyunion.cfm

So how about it Ian? You think Daimler-Chrysler doesn't know the history of Germany?

Since you're a leftist, I know that you not only have trouble with history, you probably also have trouble reading. So get your mommy to read it to you, if you have trouble.

1914 is the big exception to Kant's theory that democracies don't go to war with each other, but it's hard to think of another one.

Question for Ian: Is *The Economist* a fruit loop publication? That is hard to believe, given that they tend to be the voice of educated common sense on almost every issue. And yet they have give critical support to President Bush and regard the Iraqi invasion as justified.

"Like I said: no valour."

People with valour make mistakes. Like I wrote before, maybe you'll find that out, should you ever be in a combat situation, when a person appears to aim an RPG at you.

People of valour make mistakes, which is why armies often accidentally kill people on their own side.

So the killing of the cameraman was not an error.

DSW

"1914 is the big exception to Kant's theory that democracies don't go to war with each other, but it's hard to think of another one."

It was not an exception at all. France and England weren't true democracies when they entered WWI, as women (roughly half of their populations) could not vote. And Germany most certainly wasn't! (It's utter rubbish to claim that Kaiser Wilhelm's government was a democracy...even setting aside the fact that German women also couldn't vote.)

Uh, what difference does it make whether France and England were or weren't "true democracies" in 1914? They didn't go to war with each other. "Go to war with" means "Go to war against," not "Go to war in alliance with."

>Kaiser Wilhelm

I think you're right about Germany being much less democratic in 1914 than were Great Britain, France the US. If so, 1914 is not really an exception to Kant's theory that the way to world peace is for every country to become a democratic republic (or constitutional monarchy).

That sounds like a good goal for the twenty-first century.

My, my the libertarians and conservatives are getting testy! Still trying to retread the old, worn out, discredited arguments about how much safer we are now that we have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. You may be right that without Saddam and OBL there are two fewer madmen in the world who are in a position to harm us. The question remains how is how many more antiamerican lunatics have been created by our illegal, unilateral aggression against a sovereign nation.

Assuming that it might be somehow true that democratic nations don`t usually get into wars with each other. It has been proven time and time again by the US that we are quite capable of attacking non-democratic nations who are no direct threat to our national security. That is no statement for democracy then, is it?

I'm not sure either of those concerns would make my top ten list of the ways Plan Iraq damages US security ... but Iraq under US military governance is certainly more favorable habitat for terrorists than Iraq under Saddam.

"but Iraq under US military governance is certainly more favorable habitat for terrorists than Iraq under Saddam."

It won't be favorable habitat for long. There are going to be a lot of dead terrorists in Iraq.

"There was an equal chance of WMD falling into terro[r]ist hands if the US did not invade."

Technically this is true, since zero equals zero. Non-existent WMDs could not fall into anyone's hands.

"It is also better to have terro[r]ist[s] fighting armed solders in Iraq than un-armed US citizens in the US."

Ahhh! (channelling Maxwell Smart) The old 'start a war to attract the terrorists' trick! The one where all of the Al Qaeda sleeper cells in the US instantly forget their deep dark expensive plots against US targets, and fly over to Iraq en masse to shoot them a G.I. instead, drawn by the irresistible attraction of... um.

Surely I don't have to point out the flaw, here.

Joe Willingham, quoting somebody else, writes:
>
> > "but Iraq under US military governance is certainly
> > more favorable habitat for terrorists than Iraq under
> > Saddam."
>
> It won't be favorable habitat for long. There are going to
> be a lot of dead terrorists in Iraq.

I'm not sure that the very high likelihood that there will a lot of dead terrorists implies that the current guerilla-ish war can't continue for a long time. Israel has been been working really hard to maintain its own internal security for decades now, and progress has been very slow. There have been many dead terrorists there, to be sure, and the state or Israel is probably far more highly motivated to continue their fight than the US is or will be to continue the occupation of Iraq. If the situation were as easy as just going in and killing the (well-marked) bad guys, life would be simpler. But it isn't, and pretending that the situation is simple is not likely to be a winning strategy.

Reply to Jonathan King:

It's a tough one. Dealing with people who place no value on human life, not even their own, is hard for civilized people to figure out.

Their goal is force us down to their level of degradation. Fighting them without doing that is a tremendous challenge.

We need to have the faith and courage to believe that honor, courage and decency will triumph over Evil. Otherwise why go on living?

I hae an uneasy feeling that the problem of troops shooting reporters on a better-safe-than-sorry basis will get a lot worse before it gets better. Just before September 11 2001 the commander of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan was assassinated by Taliban and/or Al-Qaeda operatives posing as journalists. I am mildly surprised that similar stunts have not been tried in Iraq. If a couple of incidents like that were to happen to Coalition troops, then "trigger happy" might become an accurate description of the situation.

The real reason why our invasion of Iraq was stupid is not that Saddam's regime wouldn't become a genuine threat at some point, but that it actually did NOT have nearly as developed a nuclear program as both North Korea and Iran have. And tying down half or more of the US military in Iraq -- thanks to the Bush Administration's idiotic assumption that not only the war but the occupation would be a low-cost cakewalk -- seriously hinders our ability to deal with those two countries (as well as our ability to continue pursuing the remaining portion of Al Qaida.)

Note also the Administration's absolutely outrageous act, which shockingly few people have commented on, in deliberately concealing from Congress for three weeks its discovery that North Korea had restarted its own very real Bomb factory -- and then informing Congress of this within hours after Congress had given Bush his Iraq war resolution. This, at the same time that Bush was deliberately exaggerating the evidence of a major Iraqi nuclear program -- motivated in both deceptions, once again, by his and Rumsfeld's ridiculously overconfident belief that the occupation of Iraq would be easy. Dishonesty in the service of incompetence and foolish overconfidence -- well, that's a familiar governmental story.

It is very highly probable that we would have had to deal with Iraq militarily at some point in the fairly near future. It is also very highly pprobable that we made a very serious mistake by dealing with it BEFORE we dealt with its more dangerous co-members of the Semi-Axis of Evil (as well as with trying to deal with Iraq using a ridiculously inadequate number of troops who weren't even able to check out many of the likely sites for chemical and biological weapons for weeks after we won the war. Sufficient unto the day is the thug thereof...

"Can anyone argue that....?"

Yes, Mark Bahmer can argue anything. Please avoid rhetorical questions around Mark.

"Can anyone argue that....?"

Yes, Mark Bahmer can argue anything. Please avoid rhetorical questions around Mark.

hey this stuff is all welll and interesting. But the fact is that if people in Iraq are already getting nostalgic for Saddam then it doesn't say and alwful lot for democracy blooming across the middle east.

second USA now finds itself in a catch 22-so it is irrelevant now whether Saddam really had WMD or not (except when it comes to the next election) If you leave then you can be fairly sure that next thing there will be a nasty Afghan type arangement in Iraq (except Kurdish parts) and if you stay then for a while anyway GIs are going to keep getting shot (making lots of people happy unfortunately) or else shooting Cameramen and children and policemen (it doesn't even matter if it's accidental or not all that matters is that the soilders are killing people who shouldn't be killed because they invaded a country when most of the world thought there was no need to) which doesn't give a good picture of US military effeciency or ethics. Either way if you are an islamist (or whatever) opposed to the US then this reinforces your preconceptions. Maybe it will all come good in the end but that is definitely the optimistic way of looking at it

RE Wars and Democracies I don't know if the overthrow of a democratically elected government counts as an act of war but the UK and the US overthrew a few of them in the 50s in the neighbourhood you are in now. And it is not enough to define anyone who opposes you as undemocratic - even democrats are wrong sometimes!

Where

"My, my the libertarians and conservatives are getting testy!"

*This* Libertarian gets annoyed when someone calls him historically ignorant or a "fruit loop"...especially when that person is so clueless as to think that Germany in WWI was a democracy.

"Still trying to retread the old, worn out, discredited arguments about how much safer we are now that we have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan."

***I*** haven't ever tried to argue that we are "much safer" now that we have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. But I have argued that Dr. DeLong and others who argue that we are significantly LESS safe from either invasion are wrong. And Dr. DeLong's use of phrases like "U.S. foreign policy is fairly unbalanced" simply reflect his own lack of objectivity. (As well as his desire to search for clever phrases.)

If I were President of the U.S., the U.S. would not have invaded either Afghanistan or Iraq...primarily because Congress didn't declare war on either the Taliban government or Saddam Hussein's government. But I probably wouldn't have requested a Congressional declaration of war in either case...especially in the case of Iraq.

"You may be right that without Saddam and OBL there are two fewer madmen in the world who are in a position to harm us."

"May" be right? How could that statement be wrong? Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge of Iraq (with all the money and power associated with that position). And OBL is no longer protected by the government of Afghanistan.

"The question remains how is how many more antiamerican lunatics have been created by our illegal, unilateral aggression against a sovereign nation."

Yes, that is a legitimate question.

And another legitimate question, if antiamerican lunatics have been created, is whether it's better to have more antiamerican lunatics in Afghanistan or Iraq, or fewer antiamerican lunatics, but with some of those antiamerican lunatics (i.e. Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar) running those countries?

"Assuming that it might be somehow true that democratic nations don`t usually get into wars with each other."

That's not an assumption. That is a proven fact of history...democratic nations haven't gotten into wars with one another. (Of course, only a small percentage of nations have been democratic...at least so far in history.)

"It has been proven time and time again by the US that we are quite capable of attacking non-democratic nations who are no direct threat to our national security. That is no statement for democracy then, is it?"

Well, it depends on your point of view. Do you think it's good for a democratic nation to overthrow a murderous tyrant? For example, Saddam Hussein's actions resulted in the deaths of at least 500,000 of his countrymen in his ~25 years of rule...and probably at least 200,000 people in neighboring countries. That includes his wars of aggression against Iran and Kuwait, and his wars/genocide against Kurds and Shiites in his own country. Do you think his actions warranted being overthrown?

A small percentage of nations have been democratic - better yet untill the end of the last century no country was democratic including the US. Women were denied the vote everywhere. France did not give female sufferage till after WWII the UK in 1929. Both countries held colonies untill the 60s hardly a true democracy(and ironically making West Germany a better candidate for a true democracy) Belguim and the Netherlands likewise and so on leaving one looking for a war between the Scandanvian countries (without colonies) and the US.

Baiscally saying that democracies haven't gone to war with each other is barely better than saying that the earth has been at peace with the Martians all through history - probably true but meaningless

So a fairer test might be to countries with (broadly) representative Government a category into which WWI falls.

None the less there are other reasons to suspect that democracies could go to war with each other in the future:

One good contender for an interdemocrat war though is the first Indo Pakistani war. Two democracies or just the hangover from a botched Partition?

Some people would argue that US invasion of Grenada counts on the basis that the coup was formented by the US and thus is as valid an excuse for war as Poland's attack on a German border post in 1939.

France and Britain invaded Egypt in 1956 (and were told to catch on by Eisenhower) - now Nasser mightn't have turned out the best but was his Govt democratic in 1956?

Similarly the Anglo Irish war or Irish War of Independence represents a war between two countries with democratic structures (all of Ireland had access to the same democratic structures as Britain as part of the UK(and Women over 30 had even been given the vote in 1918) so does such a war of independence count)

Likewise the imperfect democracies of the USA and the CSA fought the bloodiest war of the 19th century. Do civil wars count (I am not arguing that the Confederacy was trucy democratic rather that there was a Demos - white men - which it represented)

and so on and so on .....

I forgor one more example - in 1940 Britain was on its way to invading Denmark - with whom it had no quarrel but the Germans gor there first. Britain was planning to exercise the right of preemption (against the possibility that the Germans would invade and use Norway against them) to override the democratic wises of the Norweigan who had not expressed a desire to be invaded. Surely this counts.