Session 15: Hey Liberalism, is peace too much to ask for?

On the very first page of his article, Michael Doyle quotes and explains the claims that President Reagan of the United States made about liberalism. According to Reagan, the authoritarian leaders and totalitarian ruling parties are the main culprits for promoting wars. He tipped the liberal states to promote peace. Characteristics of liberal states such as equality before law, freedom of speech, acknowledging private property, elected representation and other civil liberties deter states from fighting wars. Wars become unlikely when citizens, while bearing the burdens of war, elect their governments. Moreover, citizens do realize that the benefits from trade can only be enjoyed under peaceful conditions. 

I would disagree with this argument because it is surely not applicable in the current century. Despite of being elected by the citizens, the US government still finds it necessary to send troops to Afghanistan to fight war on terror. As far as I know, majority of the citizens are against the war on terror. They believe that their elected government is using most of their resources in military budget rather that spending on their welfare. My aunt, currently living in New York, witnesses that most of the important buildings have been neglected for ages and have been left to rot. That clearly shows how the government isn't bothered renovating them. I do appreciate Doyle for raising this point that yes liberal states are peaceful but "they are also prone to make war" (Doyle 1152) and giving an example of US "freedom fighters" waging war against Nicaragua. Schumpeter's theme that capitalism and democracy are the forces for peace contradicts the very existence of NATO which comprises of specialist fighters and troops Western capitalist and democratic states. Therefore, liberalism has failed in promoting peace and discouraging war.