John Walsh Thesis Revision

This page is an exercise in revising a massively plagiarized master's thesis by paraphrasing portions of the text that were either quoted without attribution (no citation) or quoted inappropriately (no quotation marks). In both cases we will re-write individual paragraphs and deposit the results here, by page number.

Here is a link to the New York Times article.

Instructions:

John Walsh plagiarism damage control

1. Type on your personal notebook a piece of text (paragraph) from the page represented in the New York Times article of July 23, 2014.
2. Edit to rephrase in your own words, avoiding close paraphrasing as much as possible.
3. Cut and past results into this document on the proper page in the proper order, if possible.
4. Do minor formatting or editing as needed.
5. BONUS. If you are editing a passage without attribution, insert the reference.

Page 4

War between democracies is not supported by historical studies. Michael Doyle’s 1983 article juxtaposes democratic states with international wars between the years of 1816 and 1980, concluding that “constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another.” And this is not by chance: additional studies have found the lack of violence statistically significant, even considering other variables, such as the relative wealth and geographic proximity of countries.

Even though most studies show that democratic states enjoy peace only with other democracies, this is not true. It has been argued by several scholars that democracies are the types of states who are less inherently likely to go to war. This argument has been disputed; however, it’s too early to tell if spreading democracy will do more than spread the zone of peace.

Many studies have shown that democracies will often times go to war with other types of government and only enjoy peace with other democracies. Some scholars believe that a democratic state is inherently more peaceful and the spread of democracy will bring peace. The evidence for this claim is not fully founded so it is too early to tell if spreading democracy will actually bring world peace.

Page 5

Some fail to conceptualize the possibility of democratic peace, holding U.S. operations in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile in the spotlight as spurious examples of “state terrorism” against democracies. However, the democracies in question fail to meet democratic standards under close scrutiny and reduce U.S. actions to those of mere interference, as opposed to terrorism. That the U.S. acted as the aggressor in these conflicts contradicts claims that the U.S. may have reason to believe that they may be acted upon by other true democracies.

To preserve its own security, along with fighting for those who cannot, it is imperative that the democratic world rallies to promote the ideals of freedom throughout the Middle East. The notion of being safe is one far too intertwined with the condition of being free, and the world ultimately cannot be safe until it is free.

Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?

When George W. Bush became president, he had idealized being a traditionally conservative leader with hopes of improving the lives of United States citizens. Everything changed on September 11, 2001, and his plans were temporarily halted as he was forced to shift his focus to war strategies. Bush's team believes that a democratic society in the Middle East could contribute to our own protection, and circulate morals that we promote in our country all around the world.

Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?

The first eight terms of George W. Bush's presidency were focused on instantiating and strengthening conservative ideology for the nation. This period of reform was abruptly ended on September 11, 2001 with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Bush's administration would then enter a new era in which their focus would shift to spreading democracy to the Middle East and improving U.S. security. In spreading democracy, the Bush Administration sought to end the terrorist anti-American ideas from spreading throughout the Middle East. President Bush concluded that doing so would help usher in his goals for stronger U.S. security.

Page 6

Various politicians have cited political structure, specifically one without democracy, as a cause for terrorism in the Middle East. Most often, this claim is discussed in relation to President Bush, but he is not alone. A member of the Clinton administration, Morton Halperin, cited cases of authoritarian policies in Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia that lead to the unfortunate circumstance that in turn gave rise to al Qaeda. Furthermore, Senator John Kerry ran on a platform that advocated political reform as a way to combat terrorism.

The fact that terrorism and lack of democracy is not interconnected and President Bush should be blamed for it. In 2004, Senator John Kerry believed that in order to relieve terrorism, changes must be made in the Middle East, which he stated during the presidential campaign. Due to the oppressiveness of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, there is resulting poverty and lack of education in al Qaeda as claimed by Morton Halperin. Democracy has no correlation to increased acts of terrorism based on data available, but rather terrorism is based solely on the terrorists acting on behalf of their beliefs.

There have been multiple prominent figures in US politics that have expressed a belief in the connection between terrorism and a lack of democracy. In addition to George W Bush, Senator John Kerry called for political reform in the Middle East as vital to combatting terrorism, and Morton Halperin—of the Clinton administration—connected poverty, education deficiencies, and authoritarianism to the conditions that created al Qaeda.

However, data from the State Department’s annual “Patterns of Global Terrorism” report appears to dispute this premise.

Page 7

Islam and Democracy

Modern Islam is many times considered at odds with democracy, but some well-regarded Muslims and Islamic groups disagree. Some believe they are entirely incompatible while others believe Islam necessitates a democratic system.

Islam and democracy have similar aspects to them that many Muslim scholars and intellectuals note. Those who practice the Islam faith present ideas across a broad spectrum ranging from extremes who reject the idea that Islam and democracy to those who believe that democracy is a fundamental aspect of Islam. In many countries around the world where Islam is the dominant religion, Muslims support their religion in being a fundamental proponent of democracy, regardless of a lack of direct definition of democracy in their Islamic morals and faith.

Page 8

Arabs are the leaders of their own democracy. A successful Arab democracy must come from the Arab and Islamic people. Arab officials and leaders themselves must come together and confront the present societal issues. The United States, Europe, and India need to support Arab democracy for it to truly thrive.

The emergence of democratic values in Arab countries through reform will only be successful if the major stakeholding Arab countries collaborate. These stakeholders include religious leaders, who must reject religious fanaticism, as well as government officials who must disavow demagogy. If democracy is to emerge in the Arabic countries, the effort must originate and be owned by Arabs. The United States and Europe will and must play only a supporting role.

In Egypt, people from similar backgrounds and having shared commonalities often support Islamism and democracy. It is an understood fact that Islamic supporters should favor democracy for a variety of reasons. Islamists envision democracy has a feasible path to widespread political participation, while democrats see this plan as an attempt to gain public approval and a larger constituency for Islam itself. Thus, it is clear that both groups are united in the political sphere.

There is support for both Islamism and democracy by populations with similar values. Islamists to increase their participation in the political conversation and view democracy as a way to do that. Democrats want to engage with more diverse populations and garner their support. They find that appealing to Islamist discourse is a way to achieve that. Islamists and democrats are united in their efforts to connect in politics.

Despite common misconceptions that Islamic belief is incompatible with democratic ideals, there is evidence to suggest that Muslims not only look favorably upon a democratic system, but also encourage its adoption for the sake of more effective political participation. In the present, despite the continued objection by conservative Islamic parties to the idea of women in positions of power, we have seen women (regardless of their particular religious affiliations) elected as the heads of government in Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, the three largest Muslim States in the world.

Page 9

Arab Support for Democracy

A frequent topic of debate throughout the Middle East involves the compatibility of Islam and democracy. Through various forms of communication and discussion, it has been determined by citizens of the Arab world see the tenets fo Islam to be inherently democratic. In other parts of the world, particularly in Western countries, religious rule and democracy are often viewed as opposing categories. It would seem that the Muslim world has rejected the practice of secularism, which is the separation of church and state. In a recent WVS, the majority of citizens in the Middle East do not view Islam and democracy as opposing forces. As a matter of fact, there were quite a few instances of respondents offering perceptive analyses on how the tenets of Islam can aid the democratization project.

Many middle easterners frequently discuss democracy and Islam. Arab citizens’ perspective on the values of Islam is stemming from democracy. Other, western, countries support vast separation between government, more specifically democracy, and religion. Muslims have not adopted the same segregation of church and state. Instead of observing the clashing between democracy and Islam, many middle easterners view ways in which they can further one another.

Page 10

First paragraph (only the sentences that were highlighted yellow): The state of politics in the Middle East has been linked by Washington to Washington’s own policies in the region for five decades, influencing U.S. policy.(cite:74) The idea that the state of the Middle East mirrored the U.S. policy there changed when terrorists from the Middle East attacked New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.75 … Two years later, President Bush spoke at the National Endowment for Democracy to state a new policy attitude toward the Middle East: the U.S. should be prioritizing the region as a democracy.(cite:79)

Upholding the political status quo was a central facet of US policy in the Middle East following the Second World War. This was forever changed by the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, DC on September 11, 2001.

Page 11

Although the Bush administration is not necessarily ready to commit to the costly and drawn-out process of rebuilding the nations, these countries in the middle east can still become democratic states. The idea that transforming these countries into democracies is a swift and easy process is simply false.

A major problem that arises in attempting to transform Iraq into a proper democracy, is the amount of effort that would be required by the United States to employ nation building in the Middle East would be substantially larger than efforts since the United States employed their help after World War II specifically in reconstructing Japan and Germany.

Page 12

In order to establish and facilitate democracy, the international community must work side-by-side with leaders and citizens in the Middle East. The leaders and citizens of the Middle East must do most of the heavy lifting when it comes to working on the transition period.

Page 13

Being able to understand the weakness of past efforts with the Middle East is significant. American money is being spent on democracy programs in the Middle East with little positive impact, economic assistance has been given to Arab countries, but there are small odds that it will ever transpire into the administration that Bush had hoped for. The United States needs to be more clear in their goals and not support unresponsive reform programs. Intro: It is imperative for the United States (U.S.) to collaborate with other countries towards democracy in the Middle East region. The U.S. should work on their achievable diplomatic objectives over the next several decades. These goals would benefit others if they convince Arab states to take citizen rights into consideration, foster discussion for political changes, increase monetary support for emerging democratic leaders, develop a fair judicial system, and allow other political parties to grow.

3. Influencing persons of all background about the promotion of democracy is crucial for westernization. Dialogue between these parties instead of solely between activists and pro-western governmental bodies is paramount.

4. The US should side not with those who perpetuate stagnation. Rather, groups that push the envelope in hopes of real reform. Pressuring Middle Eastern countries like Kuwait and Jordan to enact political restructuring is necessary to in steps toward eliminating superficial political contestation.

5. Each country on the path to democratization has its own issues and therefore must have a succinct, independent path from others. Smaller grassroots movements are good options for countries that would likely react negatively to drastic change in a small amount of time.

Page 14

To sum up, the issue lies in the fact that the US government is still learning about its actions in Iraq— while this is happening, Iraqi people are contending with the losses that war brought upon its country, all while taking directives from an imperialist American government forcing reconstruction by imposing democracy and American ideals. In the context of the US’s failures during the war and their inability to reconstruct Iraq afterwards, it is doubtful but possible that the Middle East could become friendlier to the idea of democracy.

While the Bush administration wishes to see Iraq as a mature democracy, they acknowledge the low odds of this happening and the difficulty arising by getting involved in the Middle East. He has affirmed on numerous occasions that "The democratic progress we've seen in the Middle East was not imposed from abroad, neither will the greater progress we've seen in the Middle East was not imposed from abroad, and neither will the greater progress we hope to see. He has also warned that democratic development will not come swiftly, or smoothly, to the Middle East, any more than it did to America and Europe.